He-162 Salamander

Elvis · 02-23-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

...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 · 02-23-2008, 11:40 AM

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 · 02-23-2008, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Basket

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

Juha · 02-23-2008, 12:40 PM

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 · 02-23-2008, 01:03 PM

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 · 02-23-2008, 05:49 PM

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 · 02-23-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juha

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 · 02-23-2008, 08:03 PM

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 · 02-23-2008, 08:10 PM

Absolutely correct.

FLYBOYJ · 02-23-2008, 10:20 PM

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 · 02-23-2008, 11:12 PM

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 · 02-23-2008, 11:25 PM

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 · 02-24-2008, 05:51 AM

"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 · 02-24-2008, 06:03 AM

Quote:

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 · 02-24-2008, 08:55 AM

"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.