Evil_Merlin
Airman 1st Class
The landing gear door and alieron failure were caused by faulty glue. I think the rudder failures were due to overstressing the aircraft.
He-162 Salamander
- Thread starter Soren
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The landing gear door and alieron failure were caused by faulty glue. I think the rudder failures were due to overstressing the aircraft.
johnbr
2nd Lieutenant
I have all ways like the 162d and would have given it the He 006 with two mg 213c 20mm.
drgondog
Major
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
Senior Master Sergeant
Good topic and one which will be very useful to me soon...
Evil_Merlin
Airman 1st Class
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.
"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?
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?
- Thread starter
- #27
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 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
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #29
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!
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
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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.
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
Chief Master Sergeant
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
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
- Thread starter
- #32
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #33
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.
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
Airman 1st Class
I really don't consider an endurance of 30-35 minutes of flight time unbeatable.
- Thread starter
- #35
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
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #37
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.
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 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.
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.
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
Major
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
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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.
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.
