Ta-152C equivalent to Tempest?

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

It was way better at killing its pilots, even the experienced hands of JG 1.
Click to expand...
So was the P80 when introduced (beeing grounded twice due to high accident rate when introduced). To be fair, all high performance, 1st generation jet fighters experienced serious safety records. Still they were better than piston props. Accident rate of the He-162 in JG1 during 1945 was lower than for the Me-262 in EKdo-262 and Kdo. Nowotny in 1944.
The He-162a had a much more reliable jet engine than either Me-262, P80, Vampire or Meteor. It was the only jet engine whiches throttles could be handled like those of piston prop fighters without risk of engine damage, which was a great asset. It had very short endurance at low altitude, however.
 
We will have to agree to disagree then, because everything I have ever read about the He 162 points to the contrary. They were a dead end design born out of desperation, with no hope of ever fullfilling its intended role. No amount of Hitler Youth with minimal glider training could have made an impact on allied air superiority using this aircraft. Post war testing saw the design relegated to the historical scrap bin of aviation curiosities. Smith and Creeks' excellent hardcover on this aircraft is the most comprehensive text written, and objectively points out the failure of this plane both technically and operationally. It took valuable resources away from the already battle proven Me 262 and Arado Ar234, and achieved absolutely nothing in return. With properly trained and experienced pilots ( which they were), the Ta 152 was more than a match for any allied fighter, whereas the He 162 came off second best every time. The Ta 152 had superior range, reliability and manouverability, could operate at all altitudes, and was a more developed and intrinsically well thought out design. The He 162 fell apart, fell out of the sky, and quite quickly fell from favour with its pilots. The pilots of the Ta 152, on the other hand, spoke in volumes, praising the quality and performance of their aircraft. Adolf Galland and Willy Messerschmitt were opposed to the production and deployment of the He 162 with good reason. It really was an inferior design.
 
Was it? I dont think this is a correct assessment, technically.

Compared to the Ta-152C the He-162a2 had

[a] a higher crit Mach figure (the highest of all 1st generation jet fighters)
an even higher roll rate -contradicting Your idea of poor maneuverability -check Eric Browns comment on maneuverability of this bird
[c] a good 90 to 100 mph faster top speed at all relevant altitudes
[d] a better climb rate
[e] an operational ejector seat

It costs only about 1/3 the manhours of a Ta-152 or Me-262 and it didn´t required either high grade fuels (priceless) or ressource costly high performance JUMO213E / DB603EM engines. Indeed the placement of engine made sure it could go along with any jet engine aviable. Two prototypes were buildt for JUMO-004D engines, two under manufactureing for HeS011 and one for interchangable swept back and swept forward wings.
I don´t think it was a plane for unskilled pilots but as a matter of fact no HJ flew that plan ever. It was slightly faster than the Me-262 in a sprint, had better climb, acceleration and maneuverability and would have been a nice dogfighter and certainly could do a couple of things better than the Me-262a in the air superiority role. It certainly had a huge share of issues to be yet worked out.

There were no confirmed kill awarding in the end of the war but some of the He-162 pilots filed down the following claims:

No.------Name-------------date--------area-------------------eyewitnesses
#1-------Ot Ihlefeldt-------?2./3.45------Lechfeld------------- Fw. Sell
#2-------Fw G. Kirchner----19.4.45------North Germ-----------captured british pilot
#3a------Uff Rechenberger--26.4.45-----North Germ--------Olt Demuth, Stabint Siegfried
#3b------Uff Rechenberger--2.5.45------North Germ--------*probably identical with 3a, in my mind the date of this claim is false (e.g. 26.4., since Rechenberger died on that date)
#4a--------Lt R. Schmitt-----4.5.45--------North Germ-------------Htm H. Künncke
#4b--------Lt. R. Schmitt-----3.5.45-------North Germ------------2nd TAF loss lists, but probably identical to 4b
#5------OT Adolf Dickfeld----21.4.45----central Germany------unknown
#6-------Lt W.Batz-------------22.4.45----central Germany----unknown

There is another claim made by K.E. Demuth, but no details are aviable. Generally spoken, none of the claims could be confirmed or refuted with the present state of data aviability.
 
Last edited:
JG1 lost thirteen He 162s and 10 pilots. Only 2 were shot down by the enemy so the He 162 was doing a good job of killing its pilots without any help from the RAF or USAAF.

The problem was that both the aircraft and the engine were under developed. The lateral and longitudinal stability problems had never been properly fixed. The engine was still unreliable and prone to flame out and structural failures of the air frame still occurred, just as one famously did on V1 during a demonstration flight, killing test pilot Gotthard Peter. 3 He 162 test pilots were killed, Wedemeyer, Full and Peter, and yet the plan was for pilots with only ground training with the BMW engine and flights in a glider conversion to fly the type in combat!

At the end of the war Oberstleutnant Herbert Ihlefeld might have been commanding JG1 but in reality this consisted of just 2 Einsatz-Staffeln. Even so 10 pilots, including the commanding officer of II./JG1, Knight's Cross holder Hauptmann Paul Dahne, who like most of the others never got to see the enemy from an He 162, were killed.

The fundamental problem of a lack of fuel was never addressed either. The He 162's half hour endurance makes a Bf 109 E look like a long range fighter.

If I had a choice between the He 162 and a Ta 152 I know which I'd choose.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
No Kills were ever credited to the He 162. The one possible exception was awarded to the AA battery, and the He 162 was incidentally in the area, by all accounts. A higher critical Mach figure is irrelevant on an aircraft which breaks up in flight or in high G manouvres. As far as Eric Browns recommendation goes, I have read his reports, and the roll rate with such short wings is a given. This was as big a drawback as an advantage, with the He 162 displaying the "falling leaf" stall characteristics which were an inherant flaw in the design. They would literally fall out of the sky. The large nacelle hampered both vision and longtitudinal stability and the aircraft was simply not known for its agility or dog fighting prowess. The Ta 152 H could out turn the Tempest and P 51 ( documented accounts), but the Tempest bested the He 162 when engaged. It was meant to be a cheap, mass produced, disposable fighter, flown by barely trained pilots, but was in fact nothing but an act of desperate futility. Have a read of Smith and Creeks reference book ( well worth the money). There are great graphics and factory drawings, as well as very well detailed photographs. In terms of a full historical, operational and technical reference on this aircraft, it cannot be bettered.
 
Last edited:
I prefer primary sources over secondary ones. And I have compiled a rather significant amount of them from german, french, soviet and british accounts on that airplane.

No Kills were ever credited to the He 162. The one possible exception was awarded to the AA battery, and the He 162 was incidentally in the area, by all accounts.
Click to expand...
Ad. Dickfeld´s 136th victory was credited while flying a He-162A. Similarely, the 2nd TAF last ww2 europe loss is credited by british sources to be caused by a He-162A. Accounts differ but You go so far to claim that they were refuted which is not the case. Similar doubts exist for Ta-152 kill claims. Data is simply not sufficient to jump to conclusions.

A higher critical Mach figure is irrelevant on an aircraft which breaks up in flight or in high G manouvres.
Click to expand...
It is. Contrary to Your interpretation, crit Mach was the best justification for a new design. The He-162A could maneuvre at speeds where the Vampire, Meteor or P80 would already been rendered immaneuverable due to Mach tuck. That´s a rather serious advantage.The Meteor was never cleared for any acrobatics, unlike the He-162a.

High speed behavior was a critical aspect of 1st generation jets.

Btw, the original Baubeschreibung 9-162 gives very precise data on g-limits of the He-162A: 6.5g sustainable, 8.5g max. I don´t know what other planes had but it´s technically justified.

I have read his reports, and the roll rate with such short wings is a given. This was as big a drawback as an advantage, with the He 162 displaying the "falling leaf" stall characteristics which were an inherant flaw in the design.
Click to expand...
Roll-rate has really nothing to do with stall speed.

Just compare in the low speed behaviour of the Vampire Mk1 with the He-162a:


So what You described was an overexageration. High angle of attack approaches were typical for jet fighters but new when they made their advent in the early 40´s. Please put it in context to other period A/C before jumping to conclusions.

The large nacelle hampered both vision and longtitudinal stability and the aircraft was simply not known for its agility or dog fighting prowess.
Click to expand...
The nacelle confined vision backwards. So be it, but remember, it had the highest tactical speed so this would be an issue in approach and take off conditions, which is where the TEMPEST "bested" the He-162a (contrary to the He-162a which went into aerial dogfight with the Tempest not beeing at take off condition). The stability problem is well documented in the sources, however it was adressed by various means like wingtip changes, though that still left a lot to be desired. The agility of the He-162a was excellent and basically superior to the Fw-190 which already had a poor turnrate but an excellent roll rate. The He-162 just emphasized this approach.


JG1 lost thirteen He 162s and 10 pilots. Only 2 were shot down by the enemy so the He 162 was doing a good job of killing its pilots without any help from the RAF or USAAF.
Click to expand...
Yes. But why not putting it in perspective with the 1st operational Me-262a squadron? Kdo. Nowotny with 3 Staffeln strength suffered 26 Me-262 lost in one month. It suffered a worse attrition rate but had the benefit of beeing active in mid 1944 not spring 1945, with all it´s associated benefits in care, controll and thread environment.
The loss rate of the P80a, entirely in post war time was alarmingly high and so was the Meteor pilot loss rate from non-war experience. The truth was that the jet technology was different to piston fighters and required different skills and challanges to be mastered.


I guess we all agree that the idea to have HJ flying after modest instruction is really nothing but a non-starter. However, point is that the plane wouldn´t have equipped HJ staffeln but all plans we know suggest that Bf-109K and Fw-190D are in part to be replaced by Me-262a and He-162 airplanes. These are proper Luftwaffe Staffeln.
Contrary to Your perception, the BMW-003E was the best jet engine anywhere around in terms of operational reliability (150 to 200 hours lifetime of the hot trubine section), ability to relight in flight (only the JUMO004 and the BMW003 were ale to do that in ww2), high altitude behavior and rapid throttle change behavior. Due to the latter two aspects it was certainly better than the trouble plagued JUMO-004B and was technically more matured, too. Some issues still prevailed, f.e. flame out- caused by wrong jet section choice.
Are You aware that the structural failure of the He-162V1 has been attributed to a faulty glueing, not to a structural (e.g. design) issue?
Again, how many P80A (or for that matter Me-262V) test pilots lost their lives in the first test year? Does that make them technically unreliable -I don´t think so.
Certainly we may all claim that the detoriating conditions of the closing weeks of war in europe were not a proper environment to undertake an operational trial of new jet fighters and I wholeheartedly agree but I also guess that many people extract the wrong conclusions by not applying comparative perspectives.


The fundamental problem of a lack of fuel was never addressed either. The He 162's half hour endurance makes a Bf 109 E look like a long range fighter.
Click to expand...
Half an hour, yes. But remember thats referring to Sea level and max. permissable thrust after allowances for warming up the engines, acceleration and take off. In this condition, the VAMPIRE MKI´s endurance was 36 minutes, better by six minutes while the P80A on internal fuel could cover 49.5 minutes at SL.
It´s probably more telling that the range at 500mph cruise speed in high altitude exceeded 600mls and the endurance 1 hour and 20 minutes, all on internal fuel for 2885kg MTOW. All early jet engines were highly sensible to strong variances in fuel consumption related to different altitudes.
Plans to add drop tanks under the wingtips existed since the E500 project and it´s not plausible to me why they couldn´t have adressed the range issue properly.
 
Delcyros,

You're being a champion for the jet fighter that was singularly the most unsuccessful of the war that was in "production." Some 330 or so were built but few saw any combat or even flight. The Luftwaffe received 120 He-162's that were primarily deployed to I.JG1. They were supposed to be deployed to III.JG1 and I.JG400 but teh war ended before this happened.

The He-162 first saw combat in mid-April 1945 with Erprobungskommando 162 when an RAF officer informed his German captors that he was shot down by an aircraft matching the He-162's description on 19 April 1945 from I.JG1. The He-162 was lost as well to a Tempest in the same combat. In late april, the Soviets approached. On 6 May the German surrendered their He-162's to the Allies.

I.JG-1 lost 13 He-162's and 10 pilots.

At least one history records "As an operational aircraft the He 162 was a complete and utter failure. After all of the effort involved in its design and production only a handful of aircraft were ever used in combat, and only one combat victory was recorded, on 4 May, when Lt. Schmitt claimed a Typhoon. More He 162s were lost in accidents, and at one or possibly two were shot down - one by a Hawker Tempest of No.3 Squadron on 21 April, and a possible second by a F-6 (P-51 reconnaissance aircraft). Even if the He 162 had come into service earlier and in large numbers, it needed careful handling, and would only have been really effective in the hands of an expert pilot. Given that it was designed to be flown by partially trained novices this can only be seen as a serious failure. In the end all of those voices in Germany that have believed that the entire He 162 programme was a waste of effort were proved correct."

It was innovative, but hardly an outstanding anything, much less a great fighter.

3.947 Meteors wre built., mostly post-war, but the Meteros that DID get deoplyed destroyed 46 German aircraft on the ground and encountered more problems with misidentification than from Germans. It was frequently shot at by its own flak units.

The He-162 was a real dud due to war cicumstances but had potential that was never realized. It never flew again operationally after the war except for some captured-equipment test flights. Since it exhibited a tendency to come apart under flight stress due to sabotaged glues used by slabe labor in prototypes, right in front of the Luftwaffe top brass, this was perhaps fortuitous.
 
Last edited:
I do know that Eric Brown considered the 162 to be the best handling jet of its time. I know views on him are mixed, but he had flown most if not all of the early jets so should be worth considering
 
I'd suggest a structural failure due to faulty or inadequate gluing or bonding is a structural failure nonetheless. It doesn't matter whether the glue, rivets, skin or any other structural component fails, it fails. If bits fall off for whatever reason the airframe has failed.

To compare the loss rates and causes of the Me 262 with the He 162 would require some work. I don't believe that accidents accounted for 80% of Me 262 losses like the He 162s of JG 1. I think that too few He 162s ever flew operationally to make a meaningful comparison.

Eric Brown is a wonderful character and was a remarkable pilot but his opinions of the various aircraft he flew, sometimes only once, are no more than anecdotal evidence from one man.
These are comments from US pilots flying the F4U- Corsair for the first time.

"Visibility was poor because of the long nose, the nose high attitude, and the rearward cockpit location with respect to the wing"

"Visibility was good except dead ahead"

"Fair visibility with seat in top position"

Where they flying the same aeroplane? Pilot opinion is just that, opinion. It is not a realistic assessment of an aeroplanes performance.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
Indeed. If I could I'd invite him around to build the IKEA glass display cabinet I've just bought. He'd probably be good at that too, even pushing 100
Cheers
Steve
 
That is a very well detailed comeback Delcyros, and you have obviously put quite some time into researching the Subject. Primary and secondary sources aside, my initial and central arguement is that the Ta 152 was a superior fighter plane to the He 162. It is a bit like comparing apples to oranges in several aspects, but from a pure combat aircraft point of view, the Ta 152 proved itself. It also suffered from the same problems ( in 1945) that beset the He 162, and to some extent worse, with no spare parts. BUT, they could confidently mix it with any allied fighter, racked up at least 7 or possibly nine kills, and had a proportionally lower attrition rate amongst pilots. Consequent development of the He 162 ( as detailed in luft 46 type literature) showed some promise, with longer fuses and proper dihedral etc, but of course this never happened. What ever superiority was shown on paper failed to materialise in any practical sense.
 
delcyros said:
#4b--------Lt. R. Schmitt-----3.5.45-------North Germ------------2nd TAF loss lists, but probably identical to 4b
Generally spoken, none of the claims could be confirmed or refuted with the present state of data aviability.
Click to expand...

Except this one which was awarded, by the Germans, to a flak unit, not Schmitt.

Cheers

Steve
 
No. It was not "awarded" at all. Schmitt notes in his flight log that he has "Feindflugzeug effektiv beschossen", which meant he fired at and observed strikes on the enemy a/c, the base for a claim. The 20mm AAA also observed effective hits on the Tempest and filed it´s own claim. By british definitions, this kill would be shared between them but such a practice (sharing kills) was never executed in Germany. Note two of the six or seven claims were not made by JG-1 but made by EJG 162, which are generally ignored by secondary literature. At this stage of war, only claims were collected, no awards were given, that means no decsion was taken. If You read in secondary sources that it was "awarded to Flak", it´s producing really a false account.
What You can read in secondary literature is that what the authors interprete. And generally spoken, in absence of any meaningful critical discussion, which doesn´t make it verifyable. As I stated previously, the data is still insufficient to jump to conclusions.
You notice that the He-162A claims are generally filed down with eyewitness accounts, that doesn´t translate to make kills out of claims but it should be clear that more research needs to be undertaken here. For five of these claims potential matches exist in 2nd TAF loss lists but no positive or negative ID has been put forward from any side.

You know perhaps that JG301 was ordered into combat while JG-1 had to stay clear out of combat and avoid taking offensive action except for only very few sorties in late april 1945 in order to improve pilot familarisation with the jet driven A/C. That´s nothing special for the He-162, it beset most early jet fighters. Certainly, the jet engined A/C was more difficult to handle than piston prop fighters but it offered something the Ta-152 couldn´t offer: a clear performance superiority over enemy aircraft.
There still was sufficient room for further incremental development (stability issues would have been well adressed with the -A6 variant and it´s swept back V-tail, more power was avaiable with JUMO-004D or BMW-003D engines). The He-162A´s development was cut short in may 1945 for nothing else than beeing german. I know, people stress that the engine placement is odd but then again, in those times long intake ducts and exhoust pipes ate so much thrust away from the engine that it was a critical concern. And those of the planes with the most sensible position of the engine in the fuselage or wingroots had the worst performance: He-178, Gloster E28/39, P-59, XFD-1/FH-1, XF6U, Yak-15, La-150. The P80 overcame it by pure power but still, the He-162A2 was arguably faster than the P80A1 while having only half the installed thrust, not a bad accomplishment.
 
Last edited:
Very true; there were a number of developmental variants in the pipeline, with good aerodynamic potential. The top 3 fastest manned aircraft of WW2 were German, with the He 162 coming in behind the Komet, but faster than the 262. They are still wanting to argue the toss about the Ta 152 H being the fastest operational piston engined fighter, but I am reasonably convinced that it was. Allied jets like the Meteor and P80 went on to have very long careers, while the German jets can be measured in months. They still managed, regardless of circumstances, to leave an indelible mark on aviation. Few people seem to remember that the British attempt at a cheap mass produced single engined jet, the E1.44, was a complete flop.
 

Since no claims were officially verified in 1945 (or the latter part of 1944) that's true. Did Schmitt even submit an Abschussmeldung/Zerstorungsmeldung? I guess he had no witnesses.

Cheers

Steve
 
Hello Delcyros
what is the source of your quotes from the US evaluation report in your very interesting message #87?

Juha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
627
spicmart
S
S
Why no Fw 190H but the Ta 152H?
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
8K
Denniss
D
Ta 152 Ha aerial victories
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
Demopan78
M
How Would You Like To Ride Here?
Replies
9
Views
789
Dimlee
S
D-13 vs. Tempest
Replies
12
Views
2K
Vincenzo
Menu
Log in
Register