# He-162 Salamander



## Soren (Feb 21, 2008)

The He-162A-2 Salamander whilst being an excellent design and one of the best fighters of the war, is often over-looked incorrectly referred to as flimsy and hard to fly. The He-162 is infact an engineering marvel of its time, with excellent aerodynamic properties weight distribution. The problems plaguing the final A-2 production model were engine unreliability, scarce supply of the right materials forcing use of substitute ones which in turn caused defects, and bombing of production facilities. The Allied bombing of factories forced a few production lines to move underground, and it was from there the few excellent condition He-162’s delivered came from.







From an aerodynamic engineering point of view the He-162 is an 100% excellent sound design with a very good layout. The low weight, high performance engine and small size of the a/c coupled with the perfectly sized wings and aerodynamically clean design meant a very high top speed, climb rate, excellent turn rate and roll rate. The good layout also meant it was a delight to fly, being very agile in all aspects of flight and featuring good control responsiveness. The only thing to take care of was applying too much rudder, as the aircraft was unusually responsive here and applying to much rudder at high speed could cause a structural failure of the tail.

All of the above coupled with a few new advanced features (Ejection seat) made the He-162A-2 a truly excellent fighter aircraft and one of the best designs to see service during the war.

Eric Brown called the He-162 a first class fighter aircraft, and often flew it for fun after the war.






After the war a good number of He-162’s were restored and used as solo trainers for Jet fighter pilots, a role in which it served beautifully.

He-162 A-2 specifications:

Length: 9.05 m
Wing span: 7.2 m
Wing area: 14.5 m^2
Weight empty: 1,660 kg
Weight fully loaded: 2,800 kg

Climb rate: 23.4 m/s (4,615 ft/min)
Service ceiling: 12 km (39,400 ft)
Take Off Roll: 500m (Very short for an early jet fighter!)
Range: 975 km (606 miles)

Armament: 2 x 20mm MG151/20 cannons


----------



## eddie_brunette (Feb 21, 2008)

I also think its a beautifull plane.


----------



## Soren (Feb 21, 2008)

It was certainly a fine looking aircraft.

Some pictures of an amazingly detailed 1/48 scale model of the He-162 A-2 "Red 1".


----------



## The Basket (Feb 21, 2008)

Eric Brown also said that one of his highly experienced comrades was killed because the rudders fell off. How can an aircraft be good if it suffers from structual failures...

Didn't know they flew them post war except for testing...


----------



## Graeme (Feb 21, 2008)

Soren said:


> After the war a good number of He-162’s were restored and used as solo trainers for Jet fighter pilots, a role in which it served beautifully.



Soren, are you referring to the French experience? (A-2 airframes) They described it thus;
_
"In all, this aircraft was pleasant in 'recreational' use, but could become terribly vicious in manoeuvres relatively common for a classic fighter".

"The next incident led to subsequent flights being cancelled, as, during the sixth go-around on landing, an undercarriage door was found half torn away. On debriefing, the pilots came to the conclusion that the aircraft was potentially dangerous because of its unexpected reactions, and tricky on landing".
_




From the April 2006 edition of 'Aeroplane Monthly'.


----------



## Soren (Feb 21, 2008)

Basket, 

I already mentioned you had to be careful with the rudders as they were too responsive, thus overstressing the tail structure at high speed was a hazard. The pilot you're refering to crashed during his first ever flight in the a/c. Eric Brown mentions this as-well, and he UNLIKE the other British pilot you're refering to was warned about the responsiveness of the rudders before his first flight. And as long as you kept the responsiveness of the rudder in mind the He-162 was a fantastic a/c according to Brown, a very nice a/c to fly to the limit. And this opinion is mirrored by a couple of German aces who flew the a/c as-well.

As for the French, well again inexperience, you needed to be darn careful with the rudders. Eric Brown made it quite clear that it wasn't an a/c for rookies.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 21, 2008)

The Basket said:


> Eric Brown also said that one of his highly experienced comrades was killed because the rudders fell off. How can an aircraft be good if it suffers from structual failures...
> 
> Didn't know they flew them post war except for testing...



So I guess most aircraft must not be very good by your criteria because almost all aircraft can suffer from structural failures.


----------



## Arneken (Feb 21, 2008)

Well the germans did good jobs with theire planes. Right so there were some minor problems with the rutter but If you look at the whole picture it seems to be a good plane.


----------



## A4K (Feb 21, 2008)

Interesting stuff, guys. Good or bad, she's beautiful aircraft.
If ya's ever get the chance, go to Hinterbruhl near Mödling in Austria (Just south of Vienna). This was the 'Langusta' ('Lobster') Heinkel plant set up in the local mine. They have a number of original components in a fairly crude display, including 2 instrument panels, nose wheel and gear, etc. Interesting to see where they were made, and in what conditions.


----------



## Heinz (Feb 21, 2008)

I've always liked this plane and am tempted to get the new tamiya kit thats come out. Includes the engine to build and display!

I also think that the RAF roundals dont look that bad on it either


----------



## A4K (Feb 21, 2008)

True, Heinzy! Was thinking the same thing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 21, 2008)

I think it has to be understood that there is a tendency to fly fighter type aircraft aggressively. With that said the Salamander was coming from an era where aircraft were flown with a lot of rudder. In jets there is little use of the rudder, just enough to coordinate a turn or correcting for crosswind on landing. Based on the Salamander's construction and configuration, had the aircraft been built in substantial numbers or have been built in the post war period I don't see this as an operational handicap.

I agree - the Salamander was a good aircraft and it had a lot of growth potential had the war not ended.


----------



## Glider (Feb 21, 2008)

Soren said:


> Basket,
> 
> I already mentioned you had to be careful with the rudders as they were too responsive, thus overstressing the tail structure at high speed was a hazard. The pilot you're refering to crashed during his first ever flight in the a/c. Eric Brown mentions this as-well, and he UNLIKE the other British pilot you're refering to was warned about the responsiveness of the rudders before his first flight. And as long as you kept the responsiveness of the rudder in mind the He-162 was a fantastic a/c according to Brown, a very nice a/c to fly to the limit. And this opinion is mirrored by a couple of German aces who flew the a/c as-well.
> 
> As for the French, well again inexperience, you needed to be darn careful with the rudders. Eric Brown made it quite clear that it wasn't an a/c for rookies.



It isn't often Soren and I are in total agreement but we are in this case. Eric Brown was probably unique at this time as he had flown all the jets then flying, German, American and British and this was the one he liked the most.

Re the rudder being overly sensitive, no doubt if the German designers had a little more time, this would have been resolved in the normal process of moving an aircraft from prototype to production. Its what test flying is designed to do.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Feb 21, 2008)

Well the He-162 was an interesting design but it had like all aircraft problems and the fact that there was a shortage of...well everything didn't help.It was however a design ahead of its time.Makes one wonder how would things would have looked if it wasn't a war...


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Feb 21, 2008)

I'd take the 162 over the 262 any day.


----------



## Velius (Feb 21, 2008)

I think it was amazing that it was made mostly of plywood. The sleek design of it made it look like an aircraft from another era (and as many people have already said "it was ahead of it's time"). The things the Germans were doing with aircraft design at the end of the war never ceases to fascinate me- kinda makes me wonder how the war would've turned out if it lasted another year... 

This may or may not be already on this site somewhere, but I'd like to put it into this thread for the sake of relevancy


He-162 Prototype number 6.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Feb 21, 2008)

I collect old photos of WW 2 French aircraft, and one thing i've noticed about the colors of French vs. Brit planes, is that B&W photos play illusions when it comes to colors and shades, _especially_ blue and red. These two colors literally "reverse" themselves in shades on a B&W photo, so blue hues will appear as red hues, and vice versa. Hence the common confusion of identifying British or French operated aircraft.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Feb 21, 2008)

As for the He.162 aircraft itself, I think it would have been really neat to modify it for aircraft carrier use. It would really neat! small plane, short wingspan, powerful engine, easy to adapt an arrestor hook, and nose landing gear. Could it have been possible?


----------



## HoHun (Feb 21, 2008)

Hi Arsenal,

>As for the He.162 aircraft itself, I think it would have been really neat to modify it for aircraft carrier use. It would really neat! small plane, short wingspan, powerful engine, easy to adapt an arrestor hook, and nose landing gear. Could it have been possible?

Funny that you should mention ... being a fan of the flight simulator X-Plane, I once built a model of the Heinkel He 162 for that simulator, added the arrestor hook and made some attempts to land on a carrier. It turned out to be very difficult, and I had to add a modern-style head-up display with velocity vector indication to be able to land it successfully.

The reason was not any deficit in the aerodynamic properties of the aircraft, but simply the very slow reaction of the engine to any throttle increase.

The long spool-up times had been mentioned in the French reports on the time, and in fact they were quite noticable when landing on land base, too. It was not a real problem there if you settled for a long, well-stabilized approach, but of course a large runway on terra firma is much easier to land on than a moving, pitching carrier deck.

(Note that it took quite a while before jet aircraft were considered suitable for carrier operations. The slow spool-up times seem to have been one of the main reasons for this delay.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Marcel (Feb 21, 2008)

I thought the structural failures mentioned were caused by the inferior glue, used on the aircraft. Hardly suprising IMO look at the time in which it was build, late in WWII.
Below a picture I took of a salamander at Hendon RAF museum. It really is a beautiful a/c


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Feb 21, 2008)

Marcel said:


> I thought the structural failures mentioned were caused by the inferior glue, used on the aircraft. Hardly suprising IMO look at the time in which it was build, late in WWII.
> Below a picture I took of a salamander at Hendon RAF museum. It really is a beautiful a/c



The landing gear door and alieron failure were caused by faulty glue. I think the rudder failures were due to overstressing the aircraft.


----------



## johnbr (Feb 21, 2008)

I have all ways like the 162d and would have given it the He 006 with two mg 213c 20mm.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 21, 2008)

Evil_Merlin said:


> The landing gear door and alieron failure were caused by faulty glue. I think the rudder failures were due to overstressing the aircraft.



Most everything I heard about this fighter was positive, particularly considering how fast it went from first pencil on drawing to flight test.

IIRC it didn't actually go into an Operational squadron until late March, early April? but was in production in December 1944. If my memory serves me, what were the key milestones that it needed to pass before deployment?

Was JG 1 or 2 the first operational unit?


----------



## Clave (Feb 21, 2008)

Good topic and one which will be very useful to me soon...


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Feb 21, 2008)

drgondog said:


> Most everything I heard about this fighter was positive, particularly considering how fast it went from first pencil on drawing to flight test.
> 
> IIRC it didn't actually go into an Operational squadron until late March, early April? but was in production in December 1944. If my memory serves me, what were the key milestones that it needed to pass before deployment?
> 
> Was JG 1 or 2 the first operational unit?



It was postitive if you were a decent pilot. It was not a bird for new pilots at all. Many of the pilots reported that if you abuse the rudder, you were in trouble and thats what killed the Brit pilot over Farnsborough

Anyways, the initial order was for 1000 planes to be delivered by the end of April 1945, and more production to be ordered and due by the end of May (2000).

Feburary of 1945 there were at least 6 162's flying, two of them were actually production aircraft. and un the same timeframe Erprobungskommando 162 was founded at Roggenthin to test the 162. Baer was awarded command of the squadron. A few weeks later production aircraft started showing up.

All in all about 46 production 162's were completed in Feb 1945, and of course, the Luftwaffe began outfitting the first 162 squadron, I./JG 1. who traded in their Fw 190's for the 162's. While I./JG 1 was supposed to be combat ready by March, due to the Allied bombing campaign no real supply of fuel was available. Then the worst happened in April, the 8th Air Force bombed the hell outta airfield I./JG 1 was stationed at forcing them to move to another field. By this time they had about 15 162's, but only 10 could be flown. Another bombing raid forced I./JG 1 to move again, and the need arose to start sending 162's to II/JG 1.

The first reported combat contact was in mid April against a Spitfire (even though the German pilots were under order to avoid combat if possible), and the 162 high tailed it for home. A couple days later the 162 got its first kill, flown by Feldwebel Kirchner. But on the way back to land, a Tempest bounced Kirchener and shot him down. For the rest of the month the 162 flew, and was shot down a number of times mostly due to lack of pilot experience in combat. The 162 did set a record near the end of April with the first successful use of a ejection seat, and the pilot did actually survive. It seems however before surrender in May, at least 6 pilots were killed by the plane (not due to enemy contact). Its estimated at least 3 He-162's were shot down in combat, but only 1 is officially confirmed.


PS: I'm not sure why the plane was called the Salamander, the Germans typically called it the Spatz or of course Volksjäger.


----------



## buzzard (Feb 21, 2008)

"Eric Brown made it quite clear that it wasn't an a/c for rookies"

Given that the He-162 was expressly designed and built as a 'Volksjaeger', and was to be flown by novices with minimal training, I don't think it can be regarded as a success...

The French may have been "inexperienced" on the whole, but that doesn't mean that their test pilots (Most of whom were very experienced combat pilots) were. Also, if the design philosophy was of such excellence, why wasn't it widely emulated?

It is a pretty little thing, tho'...

PS: Which air force(s) used it as a trainer?


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2008)

Buzard,

The French had no experienced Jet pilots, infact none had ever flown anything other than piston engined a/c. 

The French were the ones who used the He-162 as a trainer for two years before recieving the Vampire, and it did beautifully in that role. You have to remember that rookiees were flying the bird, so a single crash over two years is pretty remarkable for any a/c. 

But that having been said, while the He-162 was highly regarded by both German British pilots for its maneuverability speed, it was like nearly every other frontline fighter not very suitable as a first time solo trainer. Like both Brown and the German pilot who flew the bird point out, one had to get used to the unusually high responsiveness of the a/c, esp. at high speeds.

As to why the He-162's design wasn't copied, well technology moved forward and some more future worthy a/c designs had been captured, the P.1101, Go229 and Ta-183 plans windtunnel results etc etc.. The He-162 design did give influence though.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 22, 2008)

There is a difference between a good design and a good aircraft.

The He 162 would have flown into combat well before any bugs were ironed out.

Eric Brown was a hugley experienced pilot and probably had the most jet time of any pilot. He flew the Me 262 and Ar 234 before the 162 so he wasn't exactly the type of pilot who was going to fly it.

It was designed with Hitler Youth pilots in mind and the aircraft was not for the inexperienced. And both the take off and landing were far too long. So the 162 did not meet its design brief. Galland himself was against the design and even if everything worked...it still had a limited range.

The 162 could have been a good aircraft but the 1945 version would fall apart and been flown by poor pilots having to use long runways that would have been under constant attack.

Structural failure is very much part of the 162 story. It was built knowing full well the rudders are going to fall off.


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2008)

That's wrong Basket,

You can't base the quality of an a/c on which pilots are going to be flying it.

The structural failure of the rudder was only a problem if you were too aggressive with the rudders at high speed, as the airplane was as already explained overly responsive here.

Furthermore the He-162 A-2 didn't suffer from any structural issues, only some of the early prototypes had issues here, and most of these were caused because of using faulty glue. And besides from the rudders failing at max rudder input at high speed the He-162's airframe was very strong!

The He-162 A-2 was an excellent aircraft as explained by both the British German pilots who flew it, but it wasn't suited for rookies, something which can be said about most fighter aircraft.

And despite this the He-162 A-2 was used by the French as a solo trainer for two years with just single accident, that's a better record than most fighter a/c of the era.

As for the Take Off distance, it was 500m which is pretty darn short for a Jet!


----------



## The Basket (Feb 22, 2008)

The difference between the 162 and other combat aircraft was it was designed so it could be flown by HJ who had some time in gliders. Very low hour pilots indeed.

Eric Brown believed this bit was a joke as no novice was going to fly the 162 safely.

So the 162 did not meet its design brief.

The short range of the 162 meant it could only be used for point defence of its own airfield.

I do like the 162 but consider it a desperate design that would be considered unacceptable in any other circumstance. The fact that the aircraft worked at all says much of the capabilities of the Germans even at that late hour.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 22, 2008)

The basket makes a good point.
I've always understood that "The People's Fighter" was engineered to be easy to fly and cheap to build, because these were the concerns facing the Germans during that part of the war.

...still, as "nice" looking as it is, I have issues with a wooden aircraft powered by a _fire breathing_ jet engine, positioned the way it is.



Elvis


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2008)

Haha Elvis, don't worry about it catching fire, the skin is metal and so is the mountings around the engine. So no risk of fires.

As for it being easy to fly, well it was if you were used to such light control forces, but a rookie having flwon only piston engined a/c will have a very hard time in it. Again it wasn't a plane for rookies, besides the requirement was that it had to be.


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2008)

The Basket said:


> The difference between the 162 and other combat aircraft was it was designed so it could be flown by HJ who had some time in gliders. Very low hour pilots indeed.
> 
> Eric Brown believed this bit was a joke as no novice was going to fly the 162 safely.
> 
> So the 162 did not meet its design brief.



It doesn't matter that it didn't meet this single requirement in the design brief, because this design requirement is impossible to meet by anyone! Building a high performance frontline fighter easy to fly for a first time rookie is impossible.

So Eric Brown wasn't wrong when he said that it was a joke to have young Hitler Youth boys fy this a/c, an opinion which was mirrored by the German pilots who thought it equally insane to have young untrained Hitler Youth boys fly such a high performance a/c. 

The point is that it was equally insane to have young untrained pilots go fly any other frontline fighter as-well, simple reason being that you need allot of time in trainers before you can step in and safely fly a full powered frontline fighter solo.



> The short range of the 162 meant it could only be used for point defence of its own airfield.



606 miles is a pretty long way Basket, more than enuogh to ensure that the a/c could be used as a regular air defence fighter.

Fact is the design was excellent in every way, and if there was fuel and the engine worked (Plus if the a/c was in good condition, which would've been far from most) and a trained pilot behind the controls it was litterally unbeatable.


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Feb 22, 2008)

I really don't consider an endurance of 30-35 minutes of flight time unbeatable.


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2008)

You really are a nitpicker..

At 500+ mph you're also going to reach your target a good deal faster, and regardless range was 606 miles. 

Also had it entered service in lets say late 44 like the Me-262 it wouldn't have taken long before fittings for drop tanks were attached.

Anyway by 1944 it wasn't long range a/c the LW was needing, it needed aircraft like the Me-262 He-162 which were so fast that they could attack th bomber streams with impunity. But there were never enough of them, and the lacking fuel supply made sure that not even 50% of the already few a/c available were ever operational. The war was lost by late 44, there were simply too many enemies to fight and too little fuel, men ammunition to fight them with.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 22, 2008)

I understand your point but the question is whether the 162 would have entered service in the RAF or USAAC...I think not.

I doubt they would have accepted it.

Even if the 162 could go at the bombers it was no use in the ground attack role. and the Germans needed a good one of those too. 

The 162 took away resources that may have been better spent on the Ar 234 or Me 262.


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2008)

The Basket said:


> I understand your point but the question is whether the 162 would have entered service in the RAF or USAAC...I think not.
> 
> I doubt they would have accepted it.



As a defensive fighter they would have happily accepted it, however that's not what the Allies needed. And besides the Me-262 was an allround much better choice.



> Even if the 162 could go at the bombers it was no use in the ground attack role.and the Germans needed a good one of those too.



I agree here, but I'd like to point out that none of early jets would've been any good in that role, acceleration in dives was simply too great. 



> The 162 took away resources that may have been better spent on the Ar 234 or Me 262.



The He-162 was cheaper and faster to build, and that is what the LW needed at that point. Had Germany been on the offensive I would agree with you that the resources would be much better spent on the Me-262 Ar-234, no doubt.


----------



## buzzard (Feb 22, 2008)

Soren,

I was unaware that the French had utilized the He-162 for training purposes, and upon checking it out (A French language Armee de L'Air site) , found that a couple of A-2s had been used for slightly over a year (April 47-July 48 ) to familiarize 30 pilots in jet operations. Which ceased upon the structural failure of one and the resultant death of its pilot. Since we can reasonably assume that by 1947, the inherent traits of the A/C were fairly well-understood, we can also assume that the French pilots would have also been warned of its limitations. So I don't think that the plane's record as a trainer is esp. stellar. Certainly the French didn't think so.

One thing I find rather incongruous is the claim of a range of 600 miles. Given that everything I've read gives the He-162 an endurance of 30 minutes( At least two pilots were killed attempting deadstick landings due to running out of fuel), how do the two figures correlate? I'm pretty sure that it couldn't maintain an average speed of 1200 MPH, including take-off and landing...

In its brief operational history, it seems that accidents and enemy action resulted in a very negative kill/loss ratio. This is hardly the hallmark of a great fighter.

The true merit of a fighter must depend on how successfully it meet the goals of its design. The He-162 was an act of desperation, rushed into production and service despite a number of innate flaws. While its's true that the goal was unrealistic, the judgement of the effectiveness of a war machine must be based on what the machine actually does, not on a lot of 'what ifs', and 'if only's... The operational record of the He-162 was abysmal, and that is the criteria on which it should be rated. It was a failure; extremely undependable, structurally inadequate, and arguably more dangerous to its own pilots than to the enemy. It brings to mind another German intercepter with stunning performance...the Me-163.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 22, 2008)

Glider said:


> It isn't often Soren and I are in total agreement but we are in this case. Eric Brown was probably unique at this time as he had flown all the jets then flying, German, American and British and this was the one he liked the most.
> 
> Re the rudder being overly sensitive, no doubt if the German designers had a little more time, this would have been resolved in the normal process of moving an aircraft from prototype to production. Its what test flying is designed to do.



I suspect the rudder limit design was slow speed control as in landing. This is an extremely short coupled airframe meaning larger control surface required for low speed stability and control.

I don't KNOW this to be true - just my observation.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 22, 2008)

I said before that the 162 did have some good stuff but it was no where near up to operational standard.

The RAF may have accepted an aircraft with the 162s performance but the aircraft itself was just not up to it.

The range was strictly point interceptor although not as bad as the Me 163.

On paper...the 162 was good and considering the circumstances of it construction...it certainly was far better than it could have been.

But it did zip...absolute zip. No better than the Do 335. It certainly earns no combat medals that's for sure. 

The 162 shows the lunacy of the German leaders for ordering such an impossible fighter and the excellence of the German engineers who even with every disadvantage in the book could still build a workable 500mph fighter.


----------



## Henk (Feb 22, 2008)

Oh what a great aircraft if you look at the design period and the time it was build and how greatly she was designed and then the fact that she was a all round great fighter. She will remain a classic and made the world look differently at the way aircraft is designed.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 23, 2008)

Are we sure the design would not make for a good (or at least "decent") ground attack aircraft?
The engine positioning, at least, is per-fect for such duties. 
This is why the engines on the A-10 are mounted rather high and far apart from each other.

...and Soren, better safe than sorry, I say. 
Still, thanks for putting my mind at ease.










Elvis


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 23, 2008)

Soren said:


> and if there was fuel and the engine worked (Plus if the a/c was in good condition, which would've been far from most) and a trained pilot behind the controls it was litterally unbeatable.



"If wishes and buts were candies and nuts, it would be xmas every day."

If the F-86 were available in 1939... things woulda been different!!!

 

.


----------



## Henk (Feb 23, 2008)

Well if it was not for the German advanced jet technology the world would not have gone so far with jet aircraft as it has today.


----------



## Soren (Feb 23, 2008)

buzzard said:


> Soren,
> 
> I was unaware that the French had utilized the He-162 for training purposes, and upon checking it out (A French language Armee de L'Air site) , found that a couple of A-2s had been used for slightly over a year (April 47-July 48 ) to familiarize 30 pilots in jet operations. Which ceased upon the structural failure of one and the resultant death of its pilot. Since we can reasonably assume that by 1947, the inherent traits of the A/C were fairly well-understood, we can also assume that the French pilots would have also been warned of its limitations. So I don't think that the plane's record as a trainer is esp. stellar. Certainly the French didn't think so.



The French used the He-162 for two years as a trainer, from 46 to 48 before getting the Vampire, and allot more than 30 pilots got to fly it. And considering that it only had ONE crash in two years gives it a rather good record as a trainer.

However that having been said the He-162 was NOT the ideal training a/c, no frontline fighter was. The very sensitive controls of the He-162 didn't help matters either. 

In short the He-162 was a FIGHTER not a trainer.



> One thing I find rather incongruous is the claim of a range of 600 miles. Given that everything I've read gives the He-162 an endurance of 30 minutes( At least two pilots were killed attempting deadstick landings due to running out of fuel), how do the two figures correlate? I'm pretty sure that it couldn't maintain an average speed of 1200 MPH, including take-off and landing...



The tested max range was 606 miles, or 975 km, at cruising speed which was 500+ mph . The endurance figures I wouldn't rely too much on.



> In its brief operational history, it seems that accidents and enemy action resulted in a very negative kill/loss ratio. This is hardly the hallmark of a great fighter.



Again you be ignorant and say the above, or you can try to investigate why it did as it did.

First of all remember who flew the a/c! It was rookies who flew this bird, and thus couldn't expect much if anything of any fighter.

Also remember that fuel was low and the Germans were seriously outnumbered everytime they took off.

Finally just two He-162's were shot down, and two to three enemy aircraft were claimed shot down by He-162's. Not too bad considering that the He-162's were flown by rookies with hardly any time behind the stick.



> The true merit of a fighter must depend on how successfully it meet the goals of its design. The He-162 was an act of desperation, rushed into production and service despite a number of innate flaws.



That's wrong however.



> While its's true that the goal was unrealistic, the judgement of the effectiveness of a war machine must be based on what the machine actually does, not on a lot of 'what ifs', and 'if only's... The operational record of the He-162 was abysmal, and that is the criteria on which it should be rated.



Again this has already been disproved.



> It was a failure; extremely undependable, structurally inadequate, and arguably more dangerous to its own pilots than to the enemy.



And that's just plain ridiculous! The bird was flown by rookies for crying out loud!

If the aircraft was more dangerous to its own pilots than to the enemy then it wouldn't just have had ONE crash in over two years with young rookie pilots still learning how to fly behind the controls! 

Infact the He-162 did REMARKABLY well considering it was flown by rookies against skilled enemy pilots who ounumbered them 10 to 1!



> It brings to mind another German intercepter with stunning performance...the Me-163.



The Me.163 isn't even in the same class. The Me-163 was more an experiment than anything else, and with an endurance of 7min it could hardly make it to the bombers before running out of fuel.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 23, 2008)

Soren said:


> ...the He-162 was NOT the ideal training a/c, no frontline fighter was. The very sensitive controls of the He-162 didn't help matters either.


Are you saying the 162 was not an "ideal" trainer because it was a bit hard to fly? (i.e., assuming sensitive controls were the issue, or at least, the main issue).


Elvis


----------



## The Basket (Feb 23, 2008)

The He 162 as a ground attacker?

Where would the bombs go? 
And the range?

I don't believe the He 162 had any big impact and other jets have a better claim.

Why the French used the He 162 is truly bizarre to me...but the French do like odd things


----------



## Elvis (Feb 23, 2008)

The Basket said:


> The He 162 as a ground attacker?
> 
> Where would the bombs go?
> And the range?
> ...


Well, there was mention of that earlier in this thread and I was just commenting on it, from a basic design standpoint, such as the positioning of the engine.
Yes, I'm sure there would have to be some changes made to make it a truly effective ground attack a/c.

Do you think there would be no room for such changes?



Elvis


----------



## Juha (Feb 23, 2008)

French got 5 He 162s, of which 3 were restored to flying condition. First flights in French service being made in April and May 47. Last flight was flown in July 23 1948, which ended in the fatal accident. The 3 He 162 flew altogether c. 50 flights, total 23hrs. So a bit over one year use and the use was not extensive.

Source: Philippe Couderchon’s 2-part article in April and May 2006 Aeroplane

Juha


----------



## luftlover (Feb 23, 2008)

the He-162, love the aircraft...

I had never known the super-sensitive rudder though, I thought most of its quirky handeling caracteristics was due to the, for the time, a very unusual engine placement. it looks top heavy... how would that effect it?

That being said, its structural problems I thought was due to the glue. Since the plane was a metal body and the wings were wood they essentailly had to be glued on, and the glue used actually ate though the wood(the "right" glue factory had been bombed)

But, with a turning radius of a P-51, the speed of an Me-262...enough said.

It would have been a fine fighter-interceptor. A bomber-killer...the armorment was on the light side, but R4M rockets...(i don't think it was ever armed with the rocket, just saying)


----------



## Soren (Feb 23, 2008)

The He-162 wasn't top heavy, the He-162 was perfectly balanced, cause as you might note the wing was placed very high, and this was to even out the weight distribution making sure the a/c didn't become top heavy.


----------



## Soren (Feb 23, 2008)

Juha said:


> French got 5 He 162s, of which 3 were restored to flying condition. First flights in French service being made in April and May 47. Last flight was flown in July 23 1948, which ended in the fatal accident. The 3 He 162 flew altogether c. 50 flights, total 23hrs. So a bit over one year use and the use was not extensive.
> 
> Source: Philippe Couderchon’s 2-part article in April and May 2006 Aeroplane
> 
> Juha




You're right about the dates, I got those mixed up as April 46 to July 48. 

Still remarkable that only one crashed with rookies flying it for over a year! Esp. consideríng it was allot more responsive than most fighters.


----------



## Denniss (Feb 23, 2008)

BTW the official name for the He 162 was Spatz (as per Heinkel) or Volksjäger (as per RLM). Salamander was the project codename during development.


----------



## Soren (Feb 23, 2008)

Absolutely correct.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 23, 2008)

In essence - the He 162's operational history and limitations were no different than some of the other early jet aircraft flying at the same time. In actuality considering where they came from, how and when they were built, I think the French experience with them show the aircraft was actually quite good for its era...


----------



## Glider (Feb 23, 2008)

There have been a number of debates over the 262 vs P80, Meteor, Vampire but its worth remembering that having He162 to act as a fighter cover with the 262 as the more heavily armed bomber destroyer would be an unmatched combination.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 23, 2008)

No doubt the 262 and P-80 were superior - I think the problems identified with the He 162 were typical. How effective shew would of been in stopping bombers? Another discussion.


----------



## Juha (Feb 24, 2008)

"Still remarkable that only one crashed with rookies flying it for over a year! Esp. consideríng it was allot more responsive than most fighters."

Soren, I don't see a one fatal crash per 23 hours flying time very positive safety record. But from so limited material one cannot say anything definite. The reason for the crash seemed to be technical. 
The French pilots who flew He 162s seemed to be experienced not rookies.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Feb 24, 2008)

> The French pilots who flew He 162s seemed to be experienced not rookies.



Seemed ? What draws you to that conclusion Juha ? 

They were rookies Juha, none of them had flown jets before and none of them had ever flown an a/c that responsive.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 24, 2008)

"Salamander' was the project code name, similar in scope to the "Ural Bomber' program.

The Me 163 was the only rocket/jet fighter for point defense (I believe) of airfields, not the Volksjager.

I think that with the parameters that Heinkel was given in the time frame alotted, its amazing that the He 162 was even able to fly let alone be posted on operational status in a span of 6 months! That in itself is an achievement that should be remembered of the 162. It had its flaws and it had its strengths but what it accomplished from an engineering standpoint was outstanding.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 24, 2008)

Just curious - does any body have any facts on the skills and experience of the French test pilots?

Soren - why would the French assign poor or inexperienced pilots to test the He 162? I don't know one way or the other so I have no dog in this hunt.

As the 162, like the Me 262, was a single seat fighter, EVERY pilot that flew it was a 'rookie' in the sense that there was no possibility of transitioning at first with an experienced He 162 pilot.. true?

The result of having poor/inexperienced pilots transition into a totally unknown (transition training in that a/c) airplane woul be stupid. Further, if this practice was the norm for the French I suspect all of the he 162s would have gone down in quick order.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 24, 2008)

I think the French would have only used high hour pilots on the He 162 just to get jet time. The idea would have been to get jet experience and not test the capability of the 162. Maybe it was the only game in town.

I still think the 162 was just an interesting side note. Yes it could this or that but it never flew combat and it never became operational and I have no proof that the French or British or Soviets or Americans used the 162 as a blueprint for their fighters.

The ejection seat idea was in other aircraft and the Me 262 certainly was the definitive ww2 jet.

I would rather have 100 Me 262s than 100 He 162s anyday.


----------



## Soren (Feb 24, 2008)

The French pilots weren't poor, they were experienced pilots in piston engined a/c, but they had never before flown a jet a/c, and the He-162 wasn't the aircraft to be training in to do so.

Like FLYBOYJ correctly pointed out these French pilots would've been used to applying allot of rudder when flying piston engined a/c, something which wasn't necessary in the He-162, infact it was dangerous. And on top of this the He-162 was an unusually responsive a/c, so accelerated stalls spins were a real hazard.

Basket,

I'd have 100 Me-262's over 100 He-162's as-well, no doubt about it.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 24, 2008)

The Basket said:


> I think the French would have only used high hour pilots on the He 162 just to get jet time. The idea would have been to get jet experience and not test the capability of the 162. Maybe it was the only game in town.
> 
> I still think the 162 was just an interesting side note. Yes it could this or that but it never flew combat and it never became operational and I have no proof that the French or British or Soviets or Americans used the 162 as a blueprint for their fighters.
> 
> ...



They actually did become operational in late March, early April. I think Bar commanded JG1 complement of He 162s?


----------



## drgondog (Feb 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> The French pilots weren't poor, they were experienced pilots in piston engined a/c, but they had never before flown a jet a/c, and the He-162 wasn't the aircraft to be training in to do so.
> 
> Like FLYBOYJ correctly pointed out these French pilots would've been used to applying allot of rudder when flying piston engined a/c, something which wasn't necessary in the He-162, infact it was dangerous. And on top of this the He-162 was an unusually responsive a/c, so accelerated stalls spins were a real hazard.
> 
> ...



In all fairness, neither was the P-80 or Me 163 or Me 262. Standing on a wing and walking a pilot through procedures is a very dangerous training process.

The first Me 262 pilots and Meteor pilots and P-80 pilots fit the same profile.

Rudder awareness and throttle and stick 'gentelness' is easily taught - if known, the training program would logically focus on transition differences from one a/ to another.

I have a hard time believing the French pilots assigned to test this a/c were either deficient or unknowing with respect to the He 162 characteristics.

The Germans were amazingly cooperative in working with USAAF pilots in transitioning the 262, and were at Gablingen in tutoring 355th FG pilots on the 109 and 190s.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 25, 2008)

The P-59 Airacomet was probably a pretty safe a/c to transition in (with large, thick -albeit laminar flow- wings--resulting in good engine-out and stall characteristics, freindly handeling, and modest top speed for a jet), this was the only role it ever served operationally, and it was the same characteristics which made it unsuitable as a combat a/c. The Yak-15 would be similar. (although it had decent performance over piston a/c, although very poor range)

Another thing to note is that the He 162 wasn't expressly designed for the "people's fighter" competition, being largely based on a light-weight fighter design privately developed by Heinkel. So the design had been around much longer than the begining of the RLM's request. In fact Heinkel had been trying to get a fighter into service for much of the war but the RLM didn't particularly like Heinkel (somewhat frustrated with private projects like his jet program instead of focusing on Bomber production and devlopment, as well as for political reasons- having a strong bias tward Messersmitt pluss Heinkel's personal dislike of the Nazi regime) and they only realy chose his project as it was farther ahead in design and higher performing than the compeditors.

Also, as 100 Me-262's would certainly be more useful than 100 He 162's, rember that the He-162 was about twice as easy to produce and uded only one engine so you could easily have twice the a/c. (it was also faster, more agile, ans a better climber) Although 2x MG-151/20's are weak for an interceptor 2x MK-108 (although with only 100 rounds total, less than a third of what the 262 carried) were origialy planned, but prooved to cause structural problems (due to the large muzzel blast causing damage, not due to recoil iirc) but this problem was solved before te end of the war, though no production machines were built as such.


The endurance down low is only ~30-40 min, (range being only around 300 mi) but this is much improoved at altitude, the 600+ mi figure being accurate with a max endurance of 85 min at 11,000 m in cmbat cruise of ~440 mph and a range of 100 km. This would be one major reason not to use it as a grount attack a/c.

See: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/stories/he-162-a-3234.html and: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/he-162-vs-meteor-mk-iii-2642.html


Also on the topic of fuel, Jets were actualy quite an advantage on this point compared to piston fighters, while they consumed much more fuel than prop fighters, they used J-2 fuel (basicly Deisel) which was still available in realitively large amounts in stockpiles in Germany throught the war and still at the war's end, while Galoline (particularly Avaition Gas) was in short supply. (the US Strategic Bombing Survey reporting over 100,000 tons of Deisel in reserve at the end of the war!) The main problem was that the German transportation network had been virtualy obliterated by Allied bombing, so getting the fuel to the planes was a major difficulty. 

This fuel also has the advantage of poor flamabillity, meaning fuel-tank fires would be unlikely in combat. (although I wouldn't want to be in a jet with an engine fire/shot-up combustion chamber)


----------



## The Basket (Feb 25, 2008)

The 162 reminds me of the Folland Gnat. They seem to have the same strenghts and weaknesses.

I would like to know what a realistic combat radius was for the 162.

True...the 162 was already on the drawing board before the competition and it did work for such a rushed fighter. 

But it still did nothing. Its true worth will never be known.


----------



## Juha (Feb 25, 2008)

IMHO its better to call rookies pilots with a limited flying experience. Pilots with much experience with different a/c usually cope better with a new a/c than pilots straight out from flying school. I’d not call Rudorffer, Weissenberger, Bär, Schuck etc rookies at the beginning of their Me 262 careers, even if they were by Soren’s definition.

French pilots seemed to have a considerable flying experience some hd flown also German a/c (Fw 190s for ex.) before their flights in He 162s. The articles I mentioned are good and recommended to those with interest to he 162.

Juha


----------



## Elvis (Feb 25, 2008)

Basket,

With a listed range of approx. 600 mi., I would think a combat radius would be something in the range of 200-250 miles.

----------------------------

Kool Kitty,

Its my understanding that it wasn't so much that the _regime_ disliked Heinkel, as they simply preferred Messerschmitt.
...after all, they did use his (Heinkel) bombers to great affect.
Also, J-2 is closer to Kerosene than Diesel fuel.



Elvis


----------



## delcyros (Feb 25, 2008)

> French pilots seemed to have a considerable flying experience some hd flown also German a/c (Fw 190s for ex.) before their flights in He 162s. The articles I mentioned are good and recommended to those with interest to he 162.


Thanks Juha, I wasn´t aware of them. Can You point me to a link of those articles? Thanks in advance.



According to the EHAG Baubeschreibung 162, Datenblatt Anl. 2, issued 1944, the He-162 range given for the different loads with:

A) at 2.500 Kg reference weight and 100% applied power (475 Kg* fuel): 20 min @ SL; 33min @ 6000m and 57 min. @ 11.000m. The latter figure translates into 660 Km range.

B) at 2.700 Kg reference weight and 100% applied power (675 Kg* fuel): 30 min @ SL and 85 min. @ 11.000m. The latter figure translates to 1.000Km range.


* fuel) not included in weight range calculation are 105 Kg fuel reserved for engine spool up, warming, taxiing, starting and acceleration to cruise speed. Calaculations include fuel burned to reach altitude. 

Note that the powersetting is 100%! A more economical powersetting for this engine would be 80%.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 25, 2008)

Elvis said:


> Basket,
> 
> Kool Kitty,
> 
> ...



I seem to remember reading that Heinkel was quite upset with having his Jewish workers and engineers removed. (Hans Van Ohain also seemed unhappy with the Nazis, having left the flying club he'd joined after it came under Nazi control.)

I also remember reading that the RLM was annoyed with Heinkel continuously working on private projects (Jet and Rocket experemental craft, and later Jet fighters which eventualy attracted the RLM's intrest) instead of focusing on bomber production and development of the He 177 bomber. (a design hampered and flawed by the RLM's request for a heavy bomber capable of dive-bombing)


I thought that J2 was heavier -closed to paraffin oil- than the kerosene used by the allies (although the Meteor could technically run on anything from 100 octane Avgas to Paraffin) the only difference being that lighter additives were present as anti-gelling agents. (diesel and paraffin being superior in safty and energy content, but having problems with gelling at low temperatures, requiring either pre-warming or anti-gelling additives)


Delcyros what do you know about the composition of J2 fuel?


----------



## Juha (Feb 25, 2008)

Hello Delcyros
articles I meant are Philippe Couderchon’s 2-part article in April and May 2006 Aeroplane, a British aviation magazine. Backnumbers maybe still available, the magazine has web-pages. The article is on the French use of He 162.
And to be exact the Fw 190s some of the French had flew before they flew He 162 were NC 900s ie French built Fw 190As.

Juha


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Feb 25, 2008)

The Basket said:


> I still think the 162 was just an interesting side note. Yes it could this or that but it never flew combat and it never became operational and I have no proof that the French or British or Soviets or Americans used the 162 as a blueprint for their fighters.
> 
> The ejection seat idea was in other aircraft and the Me 262 certainly was the definitive ww2 jet.
> 
> I would rather have 100 Me 262s than 100 He 162s anyday.



Huh? The He 162 was used in combat, and it was operational (starting with I./JG1). In fact at least one aircraft was shot down by the He 162, a RAF bird on or around April 19th 1945.

Did you read the post I made earlier?

Yes the He 280 featured an ejection seat (and it was actually used by Helmut Schenk in 1942 when he collided with another plane) and yes the He 219 had ejection seats as well, but it was the He 162 that made the seats "famous" so much so the Luftwaffe started fitting them to Me 262's, Me 163's and other aircraft of the time.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 25, 2008)

The He 162's ejection seat was more reliable than the He 219's or He 280's as it used a propellant charge instead of compressed air. (although a few deaths occured due to the canopy not releasing, but that's not a fault with the seat)

As I pointed out the He 162 was about twice as producable as the Me 262, so would you rather have 200 He 162's or 100 Me 262's?

I'd probably want a combination as the 162 would make a good comlement to the 262, though the 262 was certainly a better bomber killer. The LW could have used a light-weight single-engined Jet earlier on (with 004B's as those were the only ones produces) though...


----------



## Soren (Feb 26, 2008)

Agreed Koolkitty, but you must remember that the Me-262 was a more versatile a/c. With the Jumo 004D (Or E) the Me-262 could be used effectively as an escort fighter, easily out-performing any Allied fighter.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 26, 2008)

Kool Kitty89,

...oopsy...you know what? I bet you're right on the money.....I was thinking of *JP4* when I read your post about J2. 

Sorry, my bad. Too many J's and brain gets older by the second.



Elvis


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Feb 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> ...easily out-performing any Allied fighter.



Not in overal manuverability, accelleration (to a point), or duration. Sure it was faster and typically had a better weapons load, but it was much more sensitive to the rigors of true a2a combat. Most allied fighters could out manuver the Me-262 with realitive ease and we won't get into one of the more important parts of keeping an aircraft combat worthy, reliability and ruggedness.

Yes, yes, the Me-262 was considerably faster than any contemporary allied fighter, and while "speed is life", its not everything.

I'm not saying the He 162 was any better. But to claim the Me-262 could easily out perform any allied fighter is really not telling it as it is. There were areas it COULD outperform a contemporary allied fighter, but then again, there were areas were it was outperformed by the same.


----------



## Soren (Feb 26, 2008)

The Me-262 will out-turn out-climb any Allied fighter at high speeds though. The Me-262 can make exremely hard turns at high speeds, much tighter than the pilot can stand, and it will maintain its speed in such tight turns allot better than any piston engined fighter. The Me-262 can therefore sustain much higher turn rates for much longer, as long as the speed doesn't come below 450 km/h. 

However, a big no no in all of the early jets, including the Me-262, was trying to turn fight a piston engined fighter at low speeds, the acceleration was simply way too poor. A piston engined fighter is able to hang by its prop at so low speeds, pulling through the turn with brute power, the Jets however lacked low speed acceleration and the slow throttle response further complicated things.

The He-162 is the only jet of WW2 to be able to enter a slow to medium speed dogfight with a piston engined fighter with good chances of coming out the victor.

Anyway in short, if the pilot made sure never to get below 450 km/h the Me-262 out-performed any Allied fighter quite significantly, with a top speed of 834 km/h at SL and 870 km/h at alt. Climb rate at max clean load out (6400 kg) was 20 m/s (3,937 ft/min), and 26+ m/s (5,118 ft/min) at 5,700 kg.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 26, 2008)

In terms of adaptability and upgrade, I think the Me 262 had it all over the 162. It was a nice plane but the Volksjager couldn't progress much beyond its initial operational type. The 262 at least was able to interchange firepower and be utilized as fighter, jabo, night-fighter, etc. IMHO.


----------



## delcyros (Feb 26, 2008)

With 196 Kg/m^2 for landing (almost empty) and it´s low drag, low lift airfoil, the He-162 will not outturn many piston prop A/C low slow.


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Feb 26, 2008)

Njaco said:


> In terms of adaptability and upgrade, I think the Me 262 had it all over the 162. It was a nice plane but the Volksjager couldn't progress much beyond its initial operational type. The 262 at least was able to interchange firepower and be utilized as fighter, jabo, night-fighter, etc. IMHO.



Not true, there were plenty of plans to develop the He 162 into just about everything with the exception of a bomber. There were many engine designs, wing re-designs and everything in between. I'll post some more info when I get home. I have a couple good books on the He 162 with some of the factory drawings of stuff that never made it off the paper due to the end of the war, but was quite interesting none-the-less.


The Me 262 was more or less the jack of all trades. The He 162 was developed to be a light weight cheap fighter. In a pure fighter role I would easily choose the He 162, in a mixed role, the Me 262 is where it is at.


----------



## Glider (Feb 26, 2008)

Njaco said:


> In terms of adaptability and upgrade, I think the Me 262 had it all over the 162. It was a nice plane but the Volksjager couldn't progress much beyond its initial operational type. The 262 at least was able to interchange firepower and be utilized as fighter, jabo, night-fighter, etc. IMHO.



Isn't that always the way with very small fighters. As mentioned earlier in the thread the Folland Gnat is a good example. Small, fast, agile but too small to be any good at anything else.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 26, 2008)

Evil_Merlin said:


> Not in overal manuverability, accelleration (to a point), or duration. Sure it was faster and typically had a better weapons load, but it was much more sensitive to the rigors of true a2a combat. Most allied fighters could out manuver the Me-262 with realitive ease and we won't get into one of the more important parts of keeping an aircraft combat worthy, reliability and ruggedness.
> 
> Yes, yes, the Me-262 was considerably faster than any contemporary allied fighter, and while "speed is life", its not everything.
> 
> I'm not saying the He 162 was any better. But to claim the Me-262 could easily out perform any allied fighter is really not telling it as it is. There were areas it COULD outperform a contemporary allied fighter, but then again, there were areas were it was outperformed by the same.



Dead on. Good post. 

The pilots of the 2SF and 355th FG didn't have the highest totals for Me 262's destroyed in the air (6-1-7), but they lost none to Me 262's. If they saw them, they out manuevered them. If the 262 continued, they kept out manuevering them, waited until they were low on fuel turned for home, and then followed them.

The frustration of course, is that if the 262 chose to make one pass and go look for easier prey, the 51's could do nothing about it except wave bye bye.

And if a 51 or Spit or Tempest caught a 262 on approach or right after take off they were toast because of poor acceleration and comparable overall ability to manuever until they spooled up and got their speed up

I have serious doubts a He 162 could out turn any contemporary Allied fighter at any altitude at equal speeds and the difference should be even greater at high speeds.. but willing to see the data.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 26, 2008)

The He 162 could out-roll almost anything (maybe not the (Y)P-80A as it had boosted ailerons as well as fairly short wings) though with its short wings and could maintain energy better than the Me 262s that saw service (004B) as thrust could be boosted with over-rev for 30 sec which could be very useful in maneuvers. (although the same could be done with the 004D and E)

Also remember that the P-51's laminar-flow (low drag at the expence of low lift) airfoil had even lower lift per area than the 162's which wasn't a laminar flow airfoil. 

As for upgrades it certainly could be improved, plans for V-tails, various swept wings, 004D, 003D (1200 kp), and 011A engines were all considered, the original MK 108 armament was able reintroduced after structural modifications were made. (although not before the end of the war).


On another note the HeS-30 (109-006, canceled in early '42 for what proved to be very bad reasons) with nearly half the weight of the 004B; along with smaller length and diameter and better specific fuel consumption than even the BMW 003, and should have been fairly easy to produce --simpler than the 004A/B/D/E and 003A/E in most ways except for the advanced 5-stage reaction bladed compressor which necessitated machined blades and thrust bearings-- and likely in production before the 004B, though not the 004A) and similar thrust output s the 004B with 840-910 kp achieved in static testing by the time of cancellation. (even though only 700 kp was originally planned- same as the HeS-8 )

It could have made the Me 262 or He 162 into capable dogfighters and opened up many more possibilities for designers as well. Though it probably would have been wasted on the He 280, though the lesser but cheaper and simpler HeS 8 was well matched to this a/c and was nearing designed thrust (650-670 of the 700 planned) when it was canceled along with the HeS 30 and was more fuel efficient than most competitors, though not the HeS 30. (the major drawback was that the radial inflow turbine could not be air cooled and was too large to be practically made of tinadur or cromadur, so steel had to be used, making the engine cheap but limiting turbine inlet temperature and turbine lifespan and likely lasting as long early 004B engines (probably ~10 hrs 'till a turbine burnout in real world situations) though probably more reliable otherwise and with better spool-up characteristics). 

--One note on the HeS 8 is that it had the highest thrust per frontal area of any single-stage centrifugal engine of the war (except maybe the Nene) with about 550-590 kp and only .775 m diameter, higher thrusts were achieved later with a single axial stage and other improvements. Comparatively the 450-500 kp HeS-3b had a .93 m diameter and the 550-590 kp HeS-6 ~1.0 m, the 770 kp Welland and 908-1112 Derwent I-IV were even larger at ~1.09 m and the 1226 kp Goblin I slightly larger still at ~1.11 m.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 26, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The He 162 could out-roll almost anything (maybe not the (Y)P-80A as it had boosted ailerons as well as fairly short wings) though with its short wings and could maintain energy better than the Me 262s that saw service (004B) as thrust could be boosted with over-rev for 30 sec which could be very useful in maneuvers. (although the same could be done with the 004D and E)
> 
> Also remember that the P-51's laminar-flow (low drag at the expence of low lift) airfoil had even lower lift per area than the 162's which wasn't a laminar flow airfoil.
> 
> ...



As to maintaining energy, if you say the Thrust to weight is greater for the He 162 than the Me 262 or Mustang or Tempest, etc, or the same, but lower wing loading and overall drag I would buy what you are saying.. Is that what you are saying?


----------



## Njaco (Feb 26, 2008)

> The Me 262 was more or less the jack of all trades. The He 162 was developed to be a light weight cheap fighter. In a pure fighter role I would easily choose the He 162, in a mixed role, the Me 262 is where it is at.



That was the point I was trying to make. As a one purpose AC, the 162 was good. The multi-purpose of the 262 made it a better canidate. If I was producing AC I would want one design that could adapt to all my needs. I was aware of the developement future of the 162 but I still think it was a dead-end when compared to what the 262 had instore for the future.


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Feb 26, 2008)

Njaco said:


> That was the point I was trying to make. As a one purpose AC, the 162 was good. The multi-purpose of the 262 made it a better canidate. If I was producing AC I would want one design that could adapt to all my needs. I was aware of the developement future of the 162 but I still think it was a dead-end when compared to what the 262 had instore for the future.



But the age old adage comes into play here. 

Jack of All trades, master of none. If I'm going to be in A2A combat, I'm taking the best I can.


----------



## Njaco (Feb 26, 2008)

No worries, agreed. But the question is...is the 162 that AC?


----------



## The Basket (Feb 26, 2008)

Even if the 162 could out turn a Mustang...what about the 3 other Mustangs behind it! The 162 was there to shoot down bombers.

The range is a bit much because the 162 would have to fly fast throughout its mission to stop being bounced...and a heavy throttle would kill range.

As a bomber destroyer, the 162 would be OK I guess. Its agility, small size and high speed would make it a difficult target. A bit undergunned and always outnumbered would be against it.

Not bad for a desperate design.

There were plans to make the 162 a far more formidable fighter but the Americans also had a a plan to drop an atomic bomb on Berlin. The war ended too early for either plan to happen.

Proof that a more powerful 162 would be the least of Germanys problems.

The war was lost well before the 162 left runway. 

I bet the 162 would have been a great performer at air shows!


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Feb 26, 2008)

Njaco said:


> No worries, agreed. But the question is...is the 162 that AC?



Between the He 162 and the Me 262 for a2a combat? Yeah, I think so.

If there was a choice between all the post 1945 aircraft? Hells no.


----------



## The Basket (Feb 27, 2008)

If you look at the Folland Gnat, you will see similar issues to the 162.

The Gnat was small, agile and fast. Cheap as chips.

It also had no range and couldn't carry a worthy bombload. Even if it did it didn't have the range to carry it. The Raf pilots loved it but it was of limited use. Point defence dogfights only. Gnats didn't fall apart either.

However...in a Battle of Britain situation then Gnats would have flown off the production line.

The qualities and weanknesses of an aircraft are secondary to what mess you're in at that moment in time. Again had the Raf had 162s in 1940 then yeah they would have flown 'em. But never when they could be selective.

Desperation can do odd things to a man and beggers can't be choosers.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 27, 2008)

I was just saying wing area isn't the only factor for turning performance, the wing efficiency, airfoil, lift to drag ratio, power/thrust-loading all affect this. Lift loading is the bigest factor with wing efficiency, area, airfoil type and thickness all efecting this. The laminar flow wing has low drag but also low lift so it will produce less lift than a comparable non laminar flow wing. Other low-lift low-drag wings (seen in the P-47, and as mentioned by Delcyros, in the He 162) were similar but not as poor at lifting as a true lamiar-flow airfoil. (though also not as aerodynamicly clean)

I'd like to ask about your thoughts on the He 280's potential, but that might get us too far off topic.


----------



## Soren (Feb 27, 2008)

> and the laminar airfoil woul more likely separate later than a non laminar flow wing - assuming clean surfaces.



That is very wrong.

The sharper leading edge and middle positioned max chamber of laminar flow airfoils means boundary layer seperation occurs at lower AoA's, the transition point moving forward more rapidly, and this is no matter how clean the surface is. 

The low lift, low critical AoA and sharp sudden stall is an inherent characteristic of laminar flow airfoils and is the very reason why modern fighters feature LE flaps or slats, thus eliminating the big disadvantages of the laminar flow type airfoil.


----------



## Soren (Feb 27, 2008)

delcyros said:


> With 196 Kg/m^2 for landing (almost empty) and it´s low drag, low lift airfoil, the He-162 will not outturn many piston prop A/C low slow.




Low lift airfoil ? Where did you get that from?


----------



## Soren (Feb 27, 2008)

> Also remember that the P-51's laminar-flow (low drag at the expence of low lift) airfoil had even lower lift per area than the 162's which wasn't a laminar flow airfoil.



Very correct Koolkitty.

However piston engined a/c benefit from their line of thrust running straight over the wings, increasing the lift over the wing at low airspeeds, and so when comparing jets with piston engined fighters it isn't as simple as just looking at the Clmax of the wing.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 27, 2008)

I have a couple of questions.

With all this recent talk of manueverability of 162/262 vs. allied prop fighters, I was wondering if the same held true if the jet were to turn so the prop fighter had to turn _against_ the rotation of its prop?

Also, (and maybe this needs its own thread), did the 262 have dual throttle controls?




Elvis


----------



## Soren (Feb 27, 2008)

Yes, the Me-262 has individual throttle control.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 27, 2008)

KK- here is an article that explains both what laminar flow is, and what the modified version ultimately installed on the Mustang achieved.

Laminar Flow Airfoil

The key to the understanding of both laminar boundary layers and subsequent flow, is what charcateristics enable a 'laminar flow' airfoil to delay positive pressure gradient to negative pressure gradient and cause a transition from laminar flow to turbulent flow... an instantaneous increase in drag over laminar flow.

The more you retard this change in pressure gradient and maintain a laminar boundary layer, the less drag you produce - all other factors being equal.

The Mustang had wind tunnel results of nearly 40% of chord but never achieved that in real practice... being closer to 28-30% with average factory finish. 

Nevertheless, the Zero lift drag was less than every other conventional wing of similar thickness.


----------



## drgondog (Feb 27, 2008)

BTW - I have seen several sets of figures for the He 162?

Are these right figure for the He 162A-2?

Wing span = 23.7 ft
Wing Area = 120 sq ft
Gross Weight - no external stores = 6,187#


----------



## Soren (Feb 27, 2008)

He-162 A-2 specs

Wing area: 14.5 m^2 (156 ft^2.)
Wing span: 7.2 m (23.62 ft)
Weight fully loaded: 2,800 kg (6,173 lbs)


----------



## Soren (Feb 27, 2008)

A very good site on the He-162: Heinkel He 162


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 27, 2008)

But prop wash wont delay tip stall much since most is concentrated at the centerline.

The He 162 didn't use a laminar flow airfoil, but maybe Delcyros meant it used another low-drag airfoil-- the P-47 had a low-drag airfoil iirc, though not laminar flow and had better stall characteristics than the P-51.


I'm not an expet on aerodynamics (though many are here, I know Soren and Delcyros are quite knowledgeable), but I have a decent grasp of the general concepts. From what I've read on this forum about lamiar airfoils is that they tend to bypass turbulent flow and go straight to separated flow (stalling) at high AoA with little warning.


That aside the He 162 has about the same wing loading (maximum loaded) as the P-51D (max fuel clean configuration) both just over 40 lbs/ft2. (much better than the Me 262, albeit it had the advantage of LE slats-- which could add another ~25% lift fully extended) 

Now disregarding the type of airfoil, the He 162 would weigh quite a bit less by the time it engaged the enemy (lets assume 40-50% fuel expended). While the P-51 would likely still have all internal fuel (still carrying drop tanks). So if the P-51 drops tanks and engages it will have a higher wing loading than the He 162 and poorer roll, climb, and acceleration (at least above 300 mph) as well. Plus the 30sec 115% over-rev boost (923 kp) of the 003E would allow better acceleration/energy retention in maneuvers-- along with the fact that at ~60% fuel weight is down to ~2,400 kg and thrust/weight is up to .33 normal and .38 with over-rev!

And at optimum combat cruise at altitude 1000 km range was possible at full 2,800 kg loaded weight, this cruise was still achieved at a speed comparable to the P-51D's max speed in WEP (with wing racks) with an endurance of ~85 min at 438 mph at ~30,000 ft.

Does this comparison seem accurate to you guys?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 27, 2008)

These figures from Delcyros seem to match this except the wing area seems in conflict. (most I've seen state 14.5 m², and the wingloading Delcyros posted on this thread matches this) And the Max takeoff of ~2,700 kg from that link is considerably different than most sited at 2,800 kg usually stated. Though the empty weights and wing-span seem accurate...

From: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/he-162-vs-meteor-mk-iii-2642.html



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


----------



## Soren (Feb 27, 2008)

The wing area is 14.5 m^2, and performance was as follows:

Lenght: 9.05m
Wing span: 7.2m
Wing area: 14.5 m^2

Weight empty: 1660kg (3,666lbs)
Weight fully loaded: 2800 kg (5,942lb)

Top speeds:
890 km/h at SL
905 km/h at 5,950 m

Climb rate: 23.4 m/s (4,609 ft/min)

Service ceiling: 12,040 m (39,800 ft)

Range: 975 km (606 miles)


----------



## drgondog (Feb 27, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> But prop wash wont delay tip stall much since most is concentrated at the centerline.
> 
> *What airplanes were you thinking of where 'prop' wash influenced tip stalls?
> 
> ...



The He 162 was a superior airplane in the context of choosing to engage or leave a fight, just like the Me 262... There isn't enough history to evaluate it or derive assumptions about just 'how superior' it was. 

Its excellent speed and small size was a major plus. It's low speed manueverablity/limits seem to be a minus, it's visibility aft is terrible, it's ability to loiter is not good - so the mission seems to be focused well on climbing, attacking and running - to get out of sight so that it can land safely.

As to what the wing loading is I'm having trouble finding an unimpeachable source for the dimensions and weights. Joe Baugher's site that Soren pointed out had a higher wing area and lower gross weight than others that I have found so far. 

If someone has any dimensions on the wing (like root chord or mean aero chord) it would be simple as all the span dimensions seem to agree -


----------



## Soren (Feb 28, 2008)

The He-162 was very sensitive to control imput, being almost overly agile according to its pilots, so it certainly was no rookies a/c. At slow speeds stalls could end in viscous spins, esp. if you didn't know what to do to get out of it, something Brown found no difficulty achieving though. The problem was that all previous methods of getting out of a spin in piston engined a/c didn't apply to the He-162.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 28, 2008)

OOPS... (double post)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 28, 2008)

I don't think SFC for the 003 engine changed too much at altititude, though it still may have been significant (maby 10%) but this is just speculation. I have read that it had much better altitude performance than the 004B.

Thanks for the info on the P-51's wings, Ibelieve the P-63 had similar characteristics, though in later models it had a new wing with larger area and improoved laminar flow (255 ft2 for the P-63E and XP-63D compared to 248 ft2 on the P-63A/C)

And "expert" being a realative term... 


The P-80A wouldn't be particularly good in a turning fight either depending on fuel load. Plus ealy models' engines only put out 3850 lbf. A vampire Mk.I had faily low wing loading but inless it was a late model with a 3,100 lbf goblin II acceleration would be even worse.with a thrust/weight of <.27 with 2,700 lbf Goblin I.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Feb 29, 2008)

Also the fuel consumption for the 003E may have been better than the 1.4 kg/kp*hr for the 003A. (this figure is for sea level iirc)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> The problem was that all previous methods of getting out of a spin in piston engined a/c didn't apply to the He-162.


What was done differently? Here's the general "spin 101" training gouge.

I've spun jets and recipts, recovery was about the same.

P - Retard the throttle to idle. In most aircraft, power hampers the recovery.

A - Ailerons neutral. Many pilots will attempt to recover from the spin using the ailerons. This may actually make the problem worse.

R - Apply full opposite rudder. Apply rudder opposite the rotation of the spin. If you have trouble determining which way the airplane is spinning, look at your turn coordinator or turn needle. It will indicate the direction of rotation.

E - Apply forward elevator. Immediately after applying opposite rudder, apply a quick forward motion on the control yoke and hold anti-spin controls until the aircraft starts to recover.

D - Recover from the dive. Once you have completed the four previous steps, and the rotation stops, recover from the dive.


----------



## Soren (Feb 29, 2008)

Hey FLYBOYJ, remember what would happen if you were aggressive with the rudder ? Apply full rudder in the He-162 and your playing a dangerous game.

Also the He-162 didn't suffer from the torque effects the piston engined fighters did, and thus this didn't affect recovery as much. (Hence why recipts have to cut power emmidiately)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> Hey FLYBOYJ, remember what would happen if you were aggressive with the rudder ? Apply full rudder in the He-162 and your playing a dangerous game.


The key is "aggressive rudder" and I would think that would be more prevalent at high airspeeds. You would still use full rudder if in a spin.


Soren said:


> Also the He-162 didn't suffer from the torque effects the piston engined fighters did, and thus this didn't affect recovery as much. (Hence why recipts have to cut power emmidiately)


True but regardless of p factor, power will still induce the spin whether it comes from a propeller or turbine - in both cases reducing power is a key part of the equation of getting out of the spin.


----------



## Soren (Feb 29, 2008)

We agree.

However the sensitive controls would make it abit more tricky. Brown notes the nasty spins, but he knew how to recover.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 29, 2008)

I think Brown was an experienced enough pilot to know how aggressive to be with the controls of the 162, not slamming the rudders and knowing when to chop power in a spin so the aircraft doesn't start "wrapping up."


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 1, 2008)

I knew that acheiving full laminar flow over the P-51 was not practically possible on production P-51s, but did the P-51 actually use an airfoil altered from the original NACA laminar flow airfoil that was originally chosen? 

Even if it was not a "true laminar flow airfoil" it would still have laminar-ish flow  and the CL would still be realitively low, lower than the Hellcat (very high-lift), F4U, Fw-190 (medium-high lift, the 190 and Corsair actually using the same NACA airfoil), P-40, P-38 (medium lift as well), and the P-47 (although it also used a low-lift/low-drag airfoil iirc, albeit not a laminar flow type one)


----------



## Soren (Mar 1, 2008)

The F4U Corsair's Cl suffered from the cooler placement on the leading edge and the gull wing though, so its Cl wasn't as high as the F6F 190's.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> The F4U Corsair's Cl suffered from the cooler placement on the leading edge and the gull wing though, so its Cl wasn't as high as the F6F 190's.



Have You sources to proove this, Soren? Or is this a guess.


----------



## Soren (Mar 1, 2008)

Yes I have sources, read NACA report nr. 829

The F4U's CL isn't much different from the -51's because of the cooler placement. The report also shows the effect the guns in the wings have.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> Yes I have sources, read NACA report nr. 829
> 
> The F4U's CL isn't much different from the -51's because of the cooler placement. The report also shows the effect the guns in the wings have.



This report is a very important document. However, it does show some notable differences. The F-4U´s wing does provide a max. Cl. beeing generally higher than the P-51 until the wing is stalled. The P-51 wing does stall later as it appears. The Cl at angle of attack 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 deg is:

P-51:---.38---.66---.94----1.23---1.30
F-4U:---.88---1.19--1.34---1.40--completely stalled

..and thus suggesting a superior Cl over a wide range of angle´s of attack compared to the P-51.


----------



## Soren (Mar 1, 2008)

Read the report again.

The F4U's wing stalls at 18 deg, while the P-51's stalls at 17.7 deg.


----------



## delcyros (Mar 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> Read the report again.
> 
> The F4U's wing stalls at 18 deg, while the P-51's stalls at 17.7 deg.



It is well possible that I missed things and thus may be wrong but judging from this and other observations You made on technical reports, I think You are mixing it up and this comment may be filed down along Your comments about LE-slats and airfoil thickness=lift equitations. The P-51 wing (exactly an P-51B full scale model beeing tested, noted as airplane 1) doesn´t stall at 17.7 deg. You are free to verify this on Your own. 
In the figures produced by the report, You can see that the wing dos provide lift at over 20 deg., when other wings are long completely stalled.


----------



## Soren (Mar 2, 2008)

Delcyros you need to read the report again;


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 3, 2008)

How about the P-47's wing?

Or back to the topic at hand, what about the He 162's wing?


----------



## Eurofighter (Dec 25, 2008)

As any nation facing the gut-wrenching reality of losing a war, the German aircraft industry became ever more innovative fielding creative and radical aircrafts in the last stages of WWII and the He 162 Salamander was not the exception. However as an unconventional fighter the He 162 did had its flaws, one of them was mounting the BMW 003 engine above the fuselage which made the aircraft unstable and another one was the aerodynamics problems which led to the adoption of turned-down wingtips but nevertheless it was an advance fighter and deserves its place in history.


----------



## Waynos (Dec 25, 2008)

Looking at the design of the He 162 I was wondering if anything remotely like it had also flown and I guess this is the nearest, the Miles M.100 Student. If you compare it with Heinkels more developed P.1073 proposal of October 1944 with swept wings the resemblance is even more remarkable.

Ironically, in view of much of the preceding discussion, it was designed to be a simple to fly and forgiving trainer, though it was not taken up. It was still flying as late as the 1980's however and is currently undergoing restoration.


----------



## A4K (Dec 26, 2008)

Regarding Eurofighter's comment about the engine mounted above the fueslage and turned down wingtips, the same concept has worked extremely well in the A-10 Warthog...


----------



## delcyros (Dec 26, 2008)

A nice find, Waynos. Thanks for sharing it!


Apart from the long died out discussion, Eurofighter points to a valid generalisation. Diffusion of Innovation is a complex process, in which we would expect better acceptance of innovations in general conditions which require them. I remember Rogers writing a thick book about diffusion of innovation!


----------



## Graeme (Dec 26, 2008)

Waynos said:


> currently undergoing restoration.



Another "Heinkel looking" Brit undergoing restoration (France) would have to be the Somers-Kendall SK-1 racer of 1954. 332 mph on a 330lb. s.t. Turbomeca Palas engine...


----------

