Almost in time. He-162.

cimmex · May 22, 2012

Edgar Brooks said:
Like heck it was; James Martin was invited, in 1944, to investigate ways to extract pilots from aircraft, and experiments with 16' test rig started in January 1945, with a 200lb weight on the 20th., and a live shot, with Mr. Bernard Lynch, on the 24th. The first ejection, from a modified Defiant, using just sand bags, took place on May 10th., 1945, and I doubt that Martin had been able to steal anything from Germany in just two days. Bernard Lynch made the first live ejection, from a modified Meteor III, 24-7-45.

timeline before, outside GB
Helmut Schenk, became the first person to escape from a stricken aircraft with an ejection seat on 13 January 1942 in a He280. The He 280 was never put into production status and the first operational type to provide ejection seats for the crew was the Heinkel He 219 Uhu night fighter in 1942. In Sweden a version using compressed air was tested in 1941. A gunpowder ejection seat was developed by Bofors and tested in 1943 for the Saab 21. The first test in the air was on a Saab 17 on 27 February 1944.
In late 1944, the Heinkel He 162 featured a new type of ejection seat, this time fired by an explosive cartridge. In this system the seat rode on wheels set between two pipes running up the back of the cockpit.
By the end of the war, the Do-335 Pfeil and a few prototype aircraft were also fitted with ejection seats.
cimmex

Edgar Brooks · May 22, 2012

If you check back, you'll see the accusation that the technology was "stolen" by the Allies, post-war; my point is that parallel investigations were taking place, before the war's end, so the accusation is manifestly false.

cimmex · May 22, 2012

Sorry, haven't read that (stolen) post, I agree that all nations are working on ejection seats. It's a logical evolution when planes getting faster and faster.
Regards
cimmex

davebender · May 22, 2012

Patents and copyrights don't apply vs a nation you are attempting to destroy.

FLYBOYJ · May 22, 2012

Edgar Brooks said:
If you check back, you'll see the accusation that the technology was "stolen" by the Allies, post-war; my point is that parallel investigations were taking place, before the war's end, so the accusation is manifestly false.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/almost-time-he-162-a-32339-4.html#post887174

norab · May 22, 2012

davebender said:
Patents and copyrights don't apply vs a nation you are attempting to destroy.

not historically true

The design infringement issue of the US Springfield '03 service rifle vs. Paul Mauser's design goes all the way back to the Spanish-American War. To make a long and interesting story short, when in July 1898 US forces (among them Theodore Roosevelt and his famous "Rough Riders"), armed with the then-issued .30-40 "Krag" rifle encountered Spanish military troops armed with the 7mm Mauser, the Mauser was clearly superior in every respect. A small band of Spanish regulars was able to hold a numerically superior US force at bay using the rifle. Later, T.R., apparently still stung by the technical superiority of the rifle, appointed Captain (soon to be General) William Crozier, as head of the Springfield Armory, tasked with designing a replacement for the Krag. Crozier had already designed a bolt-action rifle and used his post to further its development and adoption by the US military. And so the M1903 "Springfield" rifle was born and issued. Not long after its introduction however, rumors began to surface that many salient features of the rifle were taken directly from the Mauser design. It ultimately was determined that Crozier's rifle infringed on no less than two Mauser patents regarding the magazine design and five more on the rifle itself. The US government was embarrassed and humiliated and ultimately had to pay Mauser some $200,000 (over $4.7 million in today's dollars) in royalties. (For an interesting read on this whole nasty mess, you might check out Rifles: An Illustrated History of Their Impact, by David Westwood.)

Vincenzo · May 22, 2012

norab also if maybe true your not true
the example is not related the US government pay license fee and penalties when the two countries were in peace, propably much higher of 200,000

nuuumannn · May 23, 2012

Meanwhile, back to the He 162, Eric Brown spoke highly of it in Wings of the Luftwaffe;

"...the aircraft had excellent directional snaking characteristics, making it a good gun platform. From this aspect it was the best jet fighter of its time, and I was certainly in a position to judge, having flown every jet aircraft then in existence."

"It was like all the German jets- a superb aeroplane in its element but quite a handful to take off and land. I had never met better flying controls yet they could be so easily mishandled..."

"In view of the fact that the He 162 never saw combat, we are left with the intriguing if purely academic question of how it would have made out if it had been used in anger. It would certainly have been an effective gun platform, and its dimensions would have rendered it difficult to hit. Even if somewhat underpowered, it had a good performance - it could certainly have run rings around the contemporary Meteor - but it was no aeroplane to let embryo pilots loose on, and it would have demanded more than simply a good pilot to operate it out of a small airfield. Nevertheless as a back up for the formidable Me 262 it could have conceivably have helped the Luftwaffe to regain air superiority over Germany had it appeared on the scene sooner."

"Personally, I shall always recall the He 162 with affection as it gave me some exhilarating hours in the air and I cannot help but feel that the Allies were fortunate, for had another month or two and the necessary fuel been available, the He 162 might well have got in among our bombers in numbers at a time when desperate measures might just have achieved sensational results."

tyrodtom · May 23, 2012

I don't see where the He-162 was so small, short wing span yes, but it's actually longer in length than a Me109.

With just 2 20mm guns I wonder how effective a bomber destroyer it would have been. The early models with the 30mm cannon showed the origional design wouldn't take the pounding of the Mk-108, re-inforcing the front fuselage for the larger cannon was in the future.

nuuumannn · May 23, 2012

That's not much of a gauge of its size; the Bf 109 wasn't exactly big.

nuuumannn · May 23, 2012

Perhaps this might be a better indication of its size. That's a B-25 beside it.

tyrodtom · May 23, 2012

The Me109 is a little shorter, when compared with the P-47, or P-51. But it's only 4 inches shorter than a Spitfire.( depends on the Spitfire Mk. )

I sure there weren't many BOB pilots complaining about not being able to shoot down any Me's because they were so small.

And the Fw190 is even shorter.

norab · May 23, 2012

you are still left with the problem of not being able to check your 6 o'clock

nuuumannn · May 24, 2012

I guess size is relative; I've stood next to an He 162 and have spent a lot of time around warbirds and it appears small to me. To add a little weight to my statement, this is what Brown wrote; "The first He 162 that I encountered was a standard production A-series model and I was staggered by its tiny dimensions..." This is from a man who had flown Spits, Mustangs, Bf 109s, Fw 190s etc by that time, also having flown the Grumman Martlett (F4F Wildcat), which is no giant, in combat.

Funny, he makes no mention of visibility, but he does mention an exceptional roll rate; "...a check on the rate of roll at 400 mph revealed the highest that I had ever experienced outside the realm of hydraulically powered ailerons, and the stick force demanded to produce these exhilarating gyrations was delightfully light." So, manoeuvrability to make up for lack of rearward visibility, perhaps?

20 mm cannon is going to leave a mighty big hole in a bomber. I disagree about the MK 108; the Me 163 had such a high closure rate with its target that it had such a small window of opportunity with which to hit its target and armed with a (relatively) low velocity cannon made combat difficult. Whilst not as fast as the Komet, the He 162 was still real quick.

tyrodtom · May 24, 2012

It's wingspan is the only thing smaller, the Me109 and FW190 are both shorter, and the Spit only 3 inches longer. It does have a narrow fuselage.
Since Brown doesn't specify what dimensions, we don't know what he was refering to for sure, it could have just meant the cockpit, because it does appear pretty tight.

But it's just a fact of numbers that it's longer than the two most common German fighters.

nuuumannn · May 24, 2012

Since Brown doesn't specify what dimensions, we don't know what he was refering to for sure, it could have just meant the cockpit, because it does appear pretty tight.

Well, actually, we do. Continuing on from that line in the book. "I was also astonished by the amount of wood that had been used in its construction and the notes that I made at the time read: "An exciting looking aeroplane, though not exactly beautiful. There is so much wood around that it looks as though it has been built by a modelling enthusiast. Its narrow track undercarriage is likely to make it a handful in a cross wind. An oversize V1 on wheels!"" Sounds like he's generally speaking about the size of it.

I guess if the numbers add up, the numbers add up eh? Don't forget that pitot tube on the front; take that away and it's probably a bit shorter than a Bf 109 - and its airspeed readings are up the sh*tter.

tyrodtom · May 24, 2012

Ok, I give up. It's a few inches shorter, IF they included the pitot tube in the length.
I wonder why he's remarking on all the wood. The wings and nose cap were wood, but the rest of the fuselage and tail were aluminum, not that unusual in that era.

davparlr · May 24, 2012

It had to be a wee aircraft, it had a wee engine.

riacrato · May 24, 2012

Just btw: I haven't seen a single original reference stating the MK 108 caused problems, in the two books I have on the plane there is no mention either. AFAIK both variants were always developed in parallel and the solicitation specifically stated that "lighter" armament was acceptable since the main focus would be low level interceptions against fighters anf fighter bombers.

Juha · May 24, 2012

while in the 2006 edition of his "Wings on my sleeve" Brown praise the controls of He 162 he endedthe He 162 part in the book " The Volksjaeger Salamander, with its pigmy size and very limited range, was an impracticable proposition. A more powerful jet and swept-back wing might have made it a phenomenal machine, provided there had been more time to develop it properly."

Juha

Almost in time. He-162.

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

1st Lieutenant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Staff Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

Major

Attachments

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

Major

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads