He-162 Salamander

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

"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!!!



.
 

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.


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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

That's wrong however.


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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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 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
 
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
 
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
 
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)
 
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.
 


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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
"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
 
The French pilots who flew He 162s seemed to be experienced not rookies.
Click to expand...

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.
 
"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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

N
He 100,Space age construction?
Replies
4
Views
996
OldGeezer
O
T
Sea Plane bases for He 115
Replies
5
Views
886
woodhaven
N
Heinkel He 70
Replies
6
Views
2K
Aeroweanie
Heinkel He 111H-22 and V1
Replies
4
Views
1K
Lucky13
He 111 prototype test bed with Daimler-Benz 601 engines?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Denniss
D
Menu
Log in
Register