PDA

View Full Version : IL-2 He-162 A2 Impressions?



stalkervision
01-22-2008, 02:59 PM
My impressions of the He 162 a2. From the Maddox Fm I find it quite superior to the Me-262. Excellent and stable flying platform with sufficient fire power to really do the job on anything that got in it's way. Accelerates very very well. Imo superior to the 262 in this regard. If the germans could have got enough of these into service and at the same time built them so the wings didn't come off from poor glue I believe the allied bomber formations wouls have been in a nasty shock much more then the 262 would have delivered.

I_KG100_Prien
01-22-2008, 03:02 PM
Suppose some would say it's a good thing Gorilla Glue wasn't available to the Germans.........

harryklein66
01-22-2008, 03:32 PM
I think the He 162 is nice in Il2,
because it was modeled how it should have been,
and not as it was.
British and French had tested some exemplar after war,
and they never acheived 800+ km/h top speed (it was more around 700 IIRC ).
They judged the He 162 behaviour during combat manoeuvre dangerous.

It would have probably killed more German pilot,
than allied fighters or bombers

HuninMunin
01-22-2008, 03:46 PM
Brown would beg to differ.

PraetorHonoris
01-22-2008, 03:52 PM
I concur! I have NO idea to what tests you are referring to, harry.

Eric Brown was completely enthusiastic about that plane, describing it as very stable and an excellent weapons platform, stating it would fly circles around allied jets. William Benson, a fellow RAE test pilot essentially confirmed that.
The US test pilot Harold Watson was very impressed by the sensitive controls albeit he consired them a bit too sensitive for inexperienced pilots.
The Soviets build two He 162 after the war and found no weakness, even thought about producing it.

As for Performance, the British easily achieved the best German performance figures (905 kph) and it remained absolutely under control in a dive reaching 950 kph!
Naturally low speed handling was poor due to the engine, other than that, it was a fine.

Its main disadvantage was caused by a shortage of critical materials making many planes more fragile than they should have been.

reads

Smith/Creek: Volksjäger (Monogramm close up), pp.25-31
Balous: Heinkel He162 Spatz, pp.38-45

and of course Eric Brown's extensive report...

Skunk_438RCAF
01-22-2008, 04:03 PM
Its one of my favourite aircraft to fly in the sim. I love its handling, and quite frankly, if I had the money, would make a replica as my own toy.

It's not very effective in combat, since it only carries a limited amount of ammo, but when you get hits those 2 20mm do a nice job of shredding opponents to flying metal scrap.

stalkervision
01-22-2008, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Skunk_438RCAF:
Its one of my favourite aircraft to fly in the sim. I love its handling, and quite frankly, if I had the money, would make a replica as my own toy.

It's not very effective in combat, since it only carries a limited amount of ammo, but when you get hits those 2 20mm do a nice job of shredding opponents to flying metal scrap.

I concur. It handles like a dream. No wonder Brown liked it so much.

Metatron_123
01-22-2008, 04:37 PM
It's problems weren't performance related.
You had to know how to fly it, and it was not forgiving if mishandled, largely due to it's mixed construction I guess...

Eric Brown also describes how a fellow test pilot got killed in one.

But yes, it is indeed fun to fly. I had a lot of fun in QMB having 8 tempests chase me (to simulate being outnumbered http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif) outpacing them, and once having put enough distance between me and them, I'd do an immelman and then dive down and shoot one down at a time before diving away to escape and doing the same.

I must say I have few complaints about how aircraft are in this sim. Most of it happens just how I've read about them in various respected publications.

For example, simply speaking, the Tempest does indeed outperform the Fw-190 As, while being on a par with the Fw-190 D-9.

A late Bf-109 does indeed have a heavier handling than the early ones, but when controlled well is always a dangerous enemy.

Italian fighters are indeed a joy to fly, but have crappy armament.

For me this general accuracy is no small accomplishment. I have no reason to be picky. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Waldo.Pepper
01-22-2008, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by harryklein66:
I think the He 162 is nice in Il2,
because it was modelled how it should have been,
and not as it was.
British and French had tested some exemplar after war,
and they never acheived 800+ km/h top speed (it was more around 700 IIRC ).
They judged the He 162 behaviour during combat manoeuvre dangerous.

It would have probably killed more German pilot,
than allied fighters or bombers

THIS IS NONSENSE..

Please read the following.

Some selected quotes from Eric Brown who for, better or worse is our best source on the plane.

On takeoff -

I applied about 20 deg of flap by pumping them down until they could just be seen from the cockpit, no flap position indicator being provided. I then set the elevator trim and moved the jet nozzle control to the S (start) position. The fuel indicator showed 450 litres (99 Imp gal). Moving on to the runway, I lined the aircraft up and opened the throttle slowly to 9,500 revs, meanwhile holding the aircraft on the brakes and checking that the temperature gauge did not exceed the maximum 600 C, although a momentary 700?C was permissible on moving the throttle or on start-up. The throttle movement from closed to full revs occupied 15 seconds if the temperature limit was observed.

The take-of was much longer than I had expected, and any attempt to pull the aircraft off prematurely under 118 mph (190 km/h) resulted in a tendency to wing dropping. Ideally the nosewheel was lifted off at about 105 mph (170 km/h) and the aircraft allowed to fly itself off.

Flight

Once airborne, the undercarriage was raised by pushing down the retraction lever, a handle being twisted simultaneously to raise the flaps by spring action. The total trim change proved to be only slightly nose down. With the aircraft cleaned up, I eased the throttle back to the recommended 9,200 rpm and stabilised the climbing speed at 215 mph (346 km/h). The He 162 proved very stable in the climb, and reached 5,000 ft (1 524 m) in 1.5 minutes, at which I levelled out and gently brought the throttle back to 8,900 rpm which gave a cruise of 300 mph (483 km/h) with an engine temperature of 450C.

Stability checks showed the He 162 positive about the longitudinal and directional axes but neutral laterally. Harmony of control was excellent with the rudder perhaps just a shade too light. It was soon evident that the Germans had got the original stability problems licked, but I wondered if they had cured the sideslip trouble. Application of rudder caused large amounts of slip and skid, and considerable dipping of the nose, and no more than three-quarter rudder
could be applied if a steady flat turn was desired; beyond this the rudders began to judder and buffet, and looking aft I could see vortices streaming back from the tops of the fins, the turn becoming jerky. The danger signals were loud and clear. On the credit side, however, 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.

On the climb the fuel gauge began to drop, indicating that the two ungauged wing tanks had completely drained their contents into the main tank. Handling at 30,000 ft (9 144 m) still displayed very good stability and control characteristics, apart from that very touchy rudder which had to be used sparingly. I put the nose down to commence a powered dive, at the same time moving the nozzle control to position S. There was no buffeting or vibration, and a check on the rate of roll at 400 mph (644 km/h) 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.

When level speed had built up to 350 mph (563 km/h) I pulled the He 162 into a loop. It skimmed round but I had the inescapable feeling that I was playing pretty close to the minimum speed for this particular manoeuvre. Finally, I tried a few stalls to get the feel of things before landing. As the stall was approached a gentle lateral lurching and some mild elevator buffet set in, being followed by a mild porpoising motion before the nose pitched down indicating stall had been reached.

On Landing

The landing proved difficult for technical rather than aerodynamic reasons. In the first place it took a full minute to pump down the flaps, although the undercarriage came down quickly under the action of springs when a red toggle was pulled to release the up locks. In the second place, the throttle had to be shut beyond the cruising gate into the idling gate (3,000 rpm) as soon as it was certain that the runway would not be undershot, thus cutting the thrust. The approach speed had to be held at 125 mph (200 km/h) almost up to the runway threshold as there was no question of going round again once the throttle had been moved to idling, and there was therefore an inevitable tendency to arrive with excessive speed. This called for good braking, and no German aircraft that I had ever flown had brakes that came up to British standards. By German standards, however, the He 162's brakes were good, and I had already been favourably impressed by them during taxying, but now they proved too weak for the speed involved, and I burned up a lot of runway.

Touchdown speed was at 105 mph (170 km/h), and after two or three more flights in the He 162 I got used to judging the correct spot for closing the throttle to idling, and this expertise, coupled with the powerful elevator keeping the nosewheel off the ground down to a very low speed, greatly reduced the landing run. Stopping the engine was merely a matter of closing the throttle completely, closing the fuel ****, and switching off the fuel pump. All very simple, but there was a catch for the unwary. The fuel **** and the undercarriage retraction lever nestled side by side, and requiring a downward motion to close the fuel **** and to retract the undercarriage was just asking for trouble!

Overall Impressions

My first impressions of the Volksjager were not to change much, although I was to fly the little aeroplane quite frequently. 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, and such mishandling led to the disaster at Farnborough on 9 November 1945 when Fit Lt R A Marks flying an He 162 (Werk-Nr 120072) lost his life. He had not had much experience with the Volksjager, and as he intended to simulate my display routine I had already warned him to exercise care in the use of the rudder to assist rolling. However, his enthusiasm apparently overcame his discretion for he started a low-level roll and almost immediately one fin-and-rudder assembly collapsed. The tail unit then broke away and the aircraft tumbled vertically head-over-heels out of the sky, giving him no chance to operate the ejection seat. An unforgiving aeroplane!

Combat potential.

It would certainly have been an effective gun platform, and its small 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 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.

French impressions on the plane are considerably less favourable.
However, they let their collection of Heinkels rot until 1947 until they had a go. They test flew their planes, not to evaluate the plane per se. But rather to give their pilots some experience with jet aircraft. They also imposed a 15 minute duration on flights due to safety considerations.

Here are some pages that tell of the French experience.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/salamander/03TheSalamanderinFrance3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/salamander/04TheSalamanderinFrance4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/salamander/05TheSalamanderinFrance5.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/salamander/06TheSalamanderinFrance6.jpg


The plane is my all time favourite ride in Il-2. If there was a group that flew it regularly that would suite me fine. Most of what Brown relates, the things that are modelled anyway Oleg got very nearly exactly right.

stalkervision
01-22-2008, 05:18 PM
Yes, I believe of all the planes I have flown in Il-2 the He-162 comes the closest to historical accounts of it's flying qualities. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

papotex
01-22-2008, 05:35 PM
great read waldo! thanks!

yes alot that i read in browns report is very recognizable, i love the long tAKE OFFs.

i flew a great campaign for the HE-162 called
Baltic Sparrows. search it and check it out

harryklein66
01-22-2008, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:


I still doubt given how they were produced
that all the series AC can reach 800+ top speed
(like La series don't always match the prototype perf etc... )


I know E.Brown test and the article you've posted above.
But my comment on the Spatz behaviour are correct,
it requiered experienced pilot and smooth handling, which is not the case in IL 2.

Bremspropeller
01-22-2008, 07:19 PM
It's problems weren't performance related.
You had to know how to fly it, and it was not forgiving if mishandled,

That is true for any high-performance fighter.

Just jumping in, kicking up the engines and opening throttle is gonna get you a smokin' hole in the ground in any of these.

HuninMunin
01-22-2008, 07:42 PM
Especialy true for any jet.

Waldo.Pepper
01-22-2008, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by harryklein66:
I still doubt given how they were produced
that all the series AC can reach 800+ top speed
(like La series don't always match the prototype perf etc... )

No argument from me mate. (I think that this applies to any plane though. But I get your point. Far more likely with the cobbled together on a wine press, He-162. All planes have teething troubles in their development. More so during wartime. And even more so when your regime is collapsing. Makes sense, might even pan out to be true.


Originally posted by harryklein66:I know E.Brown test and the article you've posted above. But my comment on the Spatz behaviour are correct, it requiered experienced pilot and smooth handling, which is not the case in IL 2.

And Brown points it out too, to his credit. When I read his words I don't think that he attributes the fatal crash of his colleague to any fault of construction or design or the plane. Rather he seems to be blaming the pilot for not understanding the natural limitations of the plane (which all planes have.) Incidents like this one have given the plane an undeservedly bad reputation. (IMVHO)

The problem with the Oleg He-162 is that it is not HARD HARD HARD to fly. (and the Mustang should be as easy to handle as the 162 - hope that doesn't start something. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I would like it (EVEN MORE) if it were like trying to ride a bicycle fast - backwards - and keeping it stable. (almost)

And I would love it if in Il-2 and future Oleg products if technical faults, random f ups were modelled.

Metatron_123
01-23-2008, 10:21 AM
Yeah but then you'd need thousands of pages of pilots notes too...

Heliopause
01-23-2008, 01:16 PM
Nice little plane!!.

PraetorHonoris, did Harold Watson fly this jet? I read about Jack Woolams (flying a british example on Farnborough) and Robert Hoover (flying from lake Muroc, only one time).

Xiolablu3
01-23-2008, 01:22 PM
I think it was the Toipofilm glue factory that was bombed by the RAF just before the plane entered service that caused the plane to fall apart when flown fast.

They had to use inferior glue, which just could not perform at high speeds/pressures.

Kurfurst__
01-23-2008, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by harryklein66:
I still doubt given how they were produced
that all the series AC can reach 800+ top speed
(like La series don't always match the prototype perf etc... )

Basically all 'official' or 'manufacturer' specs had a built-in tolerance. In case of prop jobs, it was +/- 3% tolerance on speed. This was needed since no two powerplants yielded the same output, and no two airframes had the same surface and build quality. Aircraft within these tolerances were accepted for service, if not, they were rejected by the state, ie. the customer - I guess these planes went back to the manufacturer for polishing, fixing. Generally speaking B.A.L. (the LW`s QC organisation responsible for this) was very strict about this until the last days of the war. The tolerance limits were very similiar in all warring countries I believe.

PraetorHonoris
01-23-2008, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Heliopause:
Nice little plane!!.

PraetorHonoris, did Harold Watson fly this jet? I read about Jack Woolams (flying a british example on Farnborough) and Robert Hoover (flying from lake Muroc, only one time).

Yes, he did according to Smith/Creek (p.29), unfortunatly I have no full report.

"The British handed the Heinkel over to USAAF Colonel Harold Watson as part of his Operation Lusty - the retrieval of German aviation equipment, aircraft, and engines, for shipment back to Wright Field."
O'Leary: Air Classics, Jul 2002


As for the He162 modelled too easy - I fully concur in one respect: the engine. It's handling with nozzle positions is not modelled at all, the engine is FAR to reliable and delivers always full power.
It is also true that the (bad) finishing of some planes could translate into a speed loss. But as you surely know, no plane in Il2 suffers from such problems.

As for speeds, the Brits never had problems reaching 850kph (and more) with optimum engine control. On the other hand the German pilot's manual of the He162 sets 750kph as max speed limit (p.6) for security reasons - was fast enough to fight the allies anyway. But in combat situations I don't think the pilots cared too much about that, when it is evident that it could and did go much faster.

Bremspropeller
01-23-2008, 02:53 PM
I think it was the Toipofilm glue factory that was bombed by the RAF just before the plane entered service that caused the plane to fall apart when flown fast.

They had to use inferior glue, which just could not perform at high speeds/pressures.

No, the bad glue ate the wood.
They changed the glue and it worked fine - after a few incidents.

luftluuver
01-23-2008, 03:43 PM
Was it not Mossies that destroyed the original glue factory?

harryklein66
01-23-2008, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
As for the He162 modelled too easy - I fully concur in one respect: the engine. It's handling with nozzle positions is not modelled at all, the engine is FAR to reliable and delivers always full power.
It is also true that the (bad) finishing of some planes could translate into a speed loss.

My only problem with the Spatz in game is just how it behave.
Because from what I've read it requiered a very different logic to be flown,
than other AC.
This is why I've stated that it was (potentially ) dangerous,
it had some reactions that could surprized a novices and even good pilots.

Eric Brown liked it, but He was a Test pilot, his understanding on how
a plane should be flown is way above of an average pilot with no
specifict training for this type.

Imagine what would have happened if it has really ended in the
Hands of young gliders pilots as it was planned.

The funny thing is that in game, it's one of the first AC
I would recommand to some one new to the game.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


But as you surely know, no plane in Il2 suffers from such problems.

Yes I know, and for me it's better like that,
because low quality manufacturing is not the AC fault after all.
It's not the top speed that bother me, but just the way it behave.
I only pointed this aspect, because the original poster seems to think that
the Glue was the only problem that prevent him to be superior to the Me 262.
In my opinion, even if it had not been rushed into service,
I doubt that it could have been more efficient than the 262 (except for fighters VS fighters ).




As for speeds, the Brits never had problems reaching 850kph (and more) with optimum engine control. On the other hand the German pilot's manual of the He162 sets 750kph as max speed limit (p.6) for security reasons - was fast enough to fight the allies anyway. But in combat situations I don't think the pilots cared too much about that, when it is evident that it could and did go much faster.

From what I've read, it seems that the problem to acheive the top speed
was more related to then engine reliability.
it was not safe enough to apply full power without troubles.
If add to this the potential structural failures due to low quality material used,
a pilot not certain of how the AC was maintained would probably have
think twice before trying to push it to it's limits.

Though I'm not saying that the Spatz couldn't have flown at 800+,
if they had been produced and introduced in the units in normal conditions.

PraetorHonoris
01-23-2008, 06:05 PM
Sorry Harry, but I fail to see the logic in your last point. The planes and engines of the RAE, which repeatedly reached more than 850 kph and even 905 kph in level flight, were the very same JG1 operated during the war.
For newly produced planes in peace look for the Soviets, who had no problem whatsoever (well, they "complained" that they could not open the canopy during taxing).

The intention of the P1073, what was to become the He162, was low level intruder interception (Kleinstjägerprojekt, 08.09.1944, was part of the Jägernotprogramm), and it could surely do very well in that role. As a bomber killer it was never planed.

The "different feel" of the He162 is caused by two simple facts: first it was a jet fighter, second the engine was on the back, meaning the low speed handling was very difficult. But then again, this was a high performance jet fighter and not a trainer.
Other than that, all pilots, including German combat pilots, praised the flying characteristics of the He162 unanimously. Lastly, having the option to be shot or to push it beyond 750 kph - what was done so often - and risk structural integrity and engine damage (both the reason for the speed limit)... well, I would choose the second.

harryklein66
01-24-2008, 02:56 AM
Well I don't know, the JG 1 lost 16 AC, 7 pilots kill and 3 injured in one month due to accidents.
It seems to indicate that something went wrong at that time.

Waldo.Pepper
01-24-2008, 03:53 AM
Originally posted by harryklein66:
It seems to indicate that something went wrong at that time.

It does seem to doesn't it. However things may not be so simple.

Several disparate points to consider.

"One pilot who flew the He 162 with I./JG 1, Oberlcutnant Emil Demuth, later commented that in his opinion the He 162 was a first class combat aircraft and much faster than any Allied machine he had encountered. Demuth was an experienced fighter pilot with 16 previous victories to his credit, however. In the hands of less experienced pilots the jet fighter had an appalling flight safety record. During the three-week period between 13 April and the end of the war, I./JG 1 lost a total of thirteen aircraft and ten pilots. At least one and possibly three of the losses were due to enemy action but the rest "” an average of one every two days "” resulted from flying accidents. The most common causes of loss were engine flame-outs and pilot error; in addition, as we have seen, there was at least one case of structural failure in flight and there may have been more."

Again and again and again we see the same comment by pilots. I am paraphrasing but they seem to be saying that if you know what you are doing it is great. If you are a sprog - you die. If there was something disastrously wrong with the plane (weak glue etc.) you would think that the experienced pilots would make mention of this supposed fact.

"On 30 April Leutnant Alfred Duerr ran short of fuel and was killed when he attempted an emergency landing on a strip of autobahn near Liibeck. The poor endurance of the jet fighter was a constant source of difficulty and it is known that the unit lost at least one other pilot to this cause."

This is one aspect that I would like to see better modelled in the game. Aside from joking around in the game - I cannot remember ever running out of fuel with this plane.

Early in May II./JG 1 moved to Leck to join the 1st Gruppe, and on the 4th the two Gruppen amalgamated into a single operational He 162 unit, Einsatz-Gruppe JG 1 under the command of Herbert Ihlefeld. That morning Rudolf Schmitt claimed the destruction of a Typhoon near Rostock, and this time there is clear verification of the victory from British records. The 'Typhoon' was in fact a Tempest of No 486 Squadron piloted by Flying Officer M. Austin, who parachuted to safety and was taken prisoner. The fact that the novice German pilot had been able to shoot down one of the Royal Air Force's best fighters illustrates the Heinkel's formidable combat potential.

Italics mine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ViktorViktor
01-24-2008, 04:07 AM
Mig-9 for teh win.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Skunk_438RCAF
01-24-2008, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:

This is one aspect that I would like to see better modelled in the game. Aside from joking around in the game - I cannot remember ever running out of fuel with this plane.

This aircraft has about 30 minutes of fuel on board. I've flown many of the Dgen missions for the 162, and on more than one occasion, I actually ran out of fuel before running out of ammo.

Waldo.Pepper
01-24-2008, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Skunk_438RCAF:
I actually ran out of fuel before running out of ammo.

Wow really! Not me. I wonder if this says something about a DGEN mission or the way Oleg modelled consumption.

I did run out of gas taxiing back to the hanger with a Me-262 once after a long flight. But not with the He- 162.

My obsession with this plane knows few limits.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/salamander/total2.jpg

Even managed to touch one. Though she is in sad shape. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/salamander/sal1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/salamander/sal2.jpg

Skunk_438RCAF
01-24-2008, 07:32 AM
Yeah...I touched the other one, the one that they keep in pieces and has no engine.

That one was traded BTW. Sucks dont it?

EDIT: this one...

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f239/Skunk24/he162cockpit.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f239/Skunk24/he162tail.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f239/Skunk24/he162wings.jpg

harryklein66
01-24-2008, 07:59 AM
Again and again and again we see the same comment by pilots. I am paraphrasing but they seem to be saying that if you know what you are doing it is great. If you are a sprog - you die.

This sums up the thing quite well (though I have no idea of what sprog mean )
I guess the views of the AC vary whether you see the glass half full, or half empty http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


If there was something disastrously wrong with the plane (weak glue etc.)

I'm not saying that the AC was a disaster !!!
IMHO it was not a bad AC, but it was "special".
As it was rushed into service,a lot of things where wrong, and a lot of work was still needed to make it safe and efficient.

Here is a list of the JG 1 losses (+ is for Killed )

JG 1
Date Pilot Cause
03.14.45 Ufz Tautz + fire
04.09.45 Lt Stiemer OK crash take off
04.11.45 Fhr Mann W crash landing
04.13.45 Fw Enderle + crash mechanical failure
04.17.45 Ufz Rieder W crash take off
04.18.45 Ufz Hartung + crash mechanical failure
04.19.45 Fw Kirchner + Shot down
04.20.45 Ufz Fendler + Crash
04.20.45 Fw Schmitt OK Crash mechanical failure
04.21.45 Fw Steeb OK Crash
04.23.45 Fw Ackermann + Crash
04.24.45 Hpt Dähne + Crash
04.25.45 Lt Stiemer W crash landing
04.26.45 Fhr Halmel + Crash
04.26.45 Ufz Rechenbach + Shot down (?)
04.30.45 Ofw Beck + Crash Fuel
04.30.45 Lt Dürr OK Crash Fuel
04.30.45 Lt Rechenberg OK Crash
04.30.45 Fw Steeb OK crash landing
05.01.45 Ufz Riehl W crash landing
05.01.45 Ufz Reimer W Crash
05.01.45 Lt Schlarp W Crash

IMHO it was not a bad AC.




Early in May II./JG 1 moved to Leck to join the 1st Gruppe, and on the 4th the two Gruppen amalgamated into a single operational He 162 unit, Einsatz-Gruppe JG 1 under the command of Herbert Ihlefeld. That morning Rudolf Schmitt claimed the destruction of a Typhoon near Rostock, and this time there is clear verification of the victory from British records. The 'Typhoon' was in fact a Tempest of No 486 Squadron piloted by Flying Officer M. Austin, who parachuted to safety and was taken prisoner. The fact that the novice German pilot had been able to shoot down one of the Royal Air Force's best fighters illustrates the Heinkel's formidable combat potential.

There is a controversy about this claim, because the Tempest wreck was examined and
it appeared that it was lost after an engine rod broke.
This was confirmed by Tom Austin himself later.
So it may have been an other AC that was just damaged.

harryklein66
01-24-2008, 08:04 AM
Impressive book collection ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

If you to see the Spatz in better shape come here at le Bourget, It was restored recently http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
-Edit it's not finished in fact :/

you ca see it here:
http://memorial.flight.free.fr/indexuk.html

Bewolf
01-24-2008, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by Skunk_438RCAF:
Yeah...I touched the other one, the one that they keep in pieces and has no engine.

That one was traded BTW. Sucks dont it?

EDIT: this one...

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f239/Skunk24/he162cockpit.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f239/Skunk24/he162tail.jpg

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f239/Skunk24/he162wings.jpg

Gosh, it's really sad how sometimes other countries let german planes rot. I was also always cringing at the Go 229s state at the Smithonian or the 335 treatment after its return to Silver Hill after it's complete revamp in Germany in the 70ies. ugh.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Skunk_438RCAF
01-24-2008, 08:16 AM
120086 has been in that state ever since being transfered to the museum by the RCAF in 1964.

I think those wood crates that hold the parts are the original ones that the RCAF built for it when they had it in storage.

I wonder if the museum would be willing to let it part to me so I can restore it to atleast a static condition. Seeings as how they are greedy they'd probably want heeps of cash for it.

Waldo.Pepper
01-24-2008, 08:19 AM
Feast your eyes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXDIhroCaac

JSG72
01-28-2008, 06:39 PM
Thanks Waldo http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I only have a vague memory and a couple of sketchy pics of the British museum plane.

Which was hanging.So no close shots.

I admire your enthusiasm for this aircraft.

I hope you are not disappointed with the Sims rendition?

I myself do not have enough titles within my library. Pertaining to this aircraft. But would crtainly wish for more.

Hanging on to your word.
Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PhantomKira
01-28-2008, 11:49 PM
I like it, a lot. Good spritely, responsive, manuverable little airplane. And a small target, as well. Great innovation with the use of the ejection seat, although that was pretty much a requirement due to engine placement.

My only gripes would be small ammunition and fuel supply, which of course is the trade-off for small size. Still, large bore cannon mean that you'll likely get a kill if you get a hit, so the small number of rounds isn't as big an issue as it could be.

Xiolablu3
01-29-2008, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think it was the Toipofilm glue factory that was bombed by the RAF just before the plane entered service that caused the plane to fall apart when flown fast.

They had to use inferior glue, which just could not perform at high speeds/pressures.

No, the bad glue ate the wood.
They changed the glue and it worked fine - after a few incidents. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


From Wikipedia :- 'The plane was in the air within an astoundingly short period of time: the design was chosen on 25 September and first flew on December 6, less than 90 days later. This was despite the fact that the factory in Wuppertal making the plywood glue, Tego-Film, had been bombed by the Royal Air Force and a replacement had to be quickly substituted.

The first flight of the He 162 V1, by Flugkapitan (test pilot) Gotthard Peter, was fairly successful, but during a high-speed run at 840 km/h the highly acidic replacement glue holding the nose gear cover on failed and the pilot was forced to land. Other problems were noted as well, notably a pitch instability and problems with slideslip due to the rudder design. Neither was considered important. On a second flight on 10 December, again with Peter at the controls, in front of various Nazi officials the glue failed again, this time on the wing. This allowed the aileron to separate, and the plane slowly rolled over and crashed, killing the pilot.

An investigation into the failure revealed that the wing structure had to be re-stressed and redesigned for more strength, as the glue bonding required for the wood parts was in many cases defective, but the schedule was so tight that testing was forced to continue with the current design. Speeds were limited to 500 km/h when the second prototype flew on 22 December.'

csThor
01-29-2008, 01:16 AM
Wikipedia is not exactly what I'd call a solid historical source. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
01-29-2008, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
Wikipedia is not exactly what I'd call a solid historical source. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Thats a given around here, I didnt even bother adding the 'from wiki so its not gospel' because we already know that, but until you can counter it and say its wrong, we have no reason to suggest the whole of wiki is inaccurate.

Anyway, it backs up what me and Bremspropellor said....the replacement glue was weak and acidic.

Waldo.Pepper
01-29-2008, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Anyway, it backs up what me and Bremspropellor said....the replacement glue was weak and acidic.

If I could please ask you to be as precise as possible in your answer to my question, that would helpful.

Exactly where, in the passage you quoted from Wiki, does it "back up that the REPLACEMENT glue was defective." (Cause, sorry but I don't see that being supported by what you quoted.)

If I guess what you are getting at -(always dangerous to guess). I would guess that because some test flights had their top end restricted - that this is somehow telling as to the quality of construction (glue).

IF, that is the case then I would suggest that this is not a certain conclusion to draw. Rather I would suggest that early problems with glue were responsible for a crisis in confidence, which influenced (permeated, perhaps even as strong a term as crippled) the testing regime which you referred to.

But that confidence was restored as familiarity and experience was built up with the plane. So much so that I am once again brought back to the point I made earlier, that ... "If there was something disastrously wrong with the glue you would think that the experienced pilots,who flew the plane, would make mention of this supposed fact."

Also -

How does an unprovable opinion of a poster to Wiki have any more validity that the opinion of a poster here on the UBI board?

[By the by: I am rather a big fan of Wiki. I think I am in the majority opinion here and believe that it gets facts largely right. Wiki is quite impressive to my mind.)

[I hate forums and writing as a medium!!
It is so fricking hard/time consuming cumbersome to write clearly ENOUGH to avoid confusion. Look at the explosion of words! Dammit this is inefficient sometimes!]

Xiolablu3
01-29-2008, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Anyway, it backs up what me and Bremspropellor said....the replacement glue was weak and acidic.

If I could please ask you to be as precise as possible in your answer to my question, that would helpful.

Exactly where, in the passage you quoted from Wiki, does it "back up that the REPLACEMENT glue was defective." (Cause, sorry but I don't see that being supported by what you quoted.)

If I guess what you are getting at -(always dangerous to guess). I would guess that because some test flights had their top end restricted - that this is somehow telling as to the quality of construction (glue).

IF, that is the case then I would suggest that this is not a certain conclusion to draw. Rather I would suggest that early problems with glue were responsible for a crisis in confidence, which influenced (permeated, perhaps even as strong a term as crippled) the testing regime which you referred to.

But that confidence was restored as familiarity and experience was built up with the plane. So much so that I am once again brought back to the point I made earlier, that ... "If there was something disastrously wrong with the glue you would think that the experienced pilots,who flew the plane, would make mention of this supposed fact."

Also -

How does an unprovable opinion of a poster to Wiki have any more validity that the opinion of a poster here on the UBI board?

[By the by: I am rather a big fan of Wiki. I think I am in the majority opinion here and believe that it gets facts largely right. Wiki is quite impressive to my mind.)

[I hate forums and writing as a medium!!
It is so fricking hard/time consuming cumbersome to write clearly ENOUGH to avoid confusion. Look at the explosion of words! Dammit this is inefficient sometimes!] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


'Tego-Film, had been bombed by the Royal Air Force and a replacement had to be quickly substituted.

The first flight of the He 162 V1, by Flugkapitan (test pilot) Gotthard Peter, was fairly successful, but during a high-speed run at 840 km/h the highly acidic replacement glue holding the nose gear cover on failed'


I really dont care if I'm right or not, if I'm wrong please point out where so I know for next time....

Waldo.Pepper
01-29-2008, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I really dont care if I'm right or not, if I'm wrong please point out where so I know for next time....

Nope not wrong. My bad. I had guessed poorly what you were getting at. And I had missed the phrase ... "acidic replacement glue"

It seems likely to me that this phrase is trying to make reference to the bombing of the tego supplier - and does imply that second grade glue was substituted. As for you being right - looks like the quote you found has merit. I shall look into the matter further see what I can find out.

I do remember that the loss of this tego-film supplier is supposed to have signalled the death knell for the TA-154. So if it could kill the prospects of the TA, then why not this one too?

I wonder what source the Wiki author relied on.

DuxCorvan
01-29-2008, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
And I would love it if in Il-2 and future Oleg products if technical faults, random f ups were modelled.

I don't think he will: it would make his sims not so good-selling in Russia... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

PraetorHonoris
01-29-2008, 01:03 PM
The thesis of the poor replacement glue was presented by Alfred Hiller (Heinkel 162 Volksjäger. Entwicklung. Produktion. Einsatz, Wien 1984, p.49) first, imo. I found it repeated as "fact" often, but in primary sources, as far as I know them, there is no indication of it.

Heinkel had a lot of problems with the glue, though. However these problems were not related to acidic characteristics of it. The reason for the deadly crash of He162 V1 was not (so much) the quality of the glue, but the lack of it at crucial points. Here is the last page summary of the crash investigation:

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/4008/img003qh4.th.jpg (http://img250.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img003qh4.jpg)
(Musterprüfungskommission 8-162; 20.12.1944, p.3)

There were Problems with the glue later on, related to it's bonding. Anyway Ernst Heinkel saw this as a problem of poor fabrication and workmanship, admonishing to never let that happen again (cf. point 7):

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/2497/img02ql7.th.jpg (http://img250.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img02ql7.jpg)
(Mitteilung von EHW, 12.02.1945, p.3)

The various speed limits imposed on the He162 prototypes were never related to glue problems - at least, not to them alone. The reasons were structural weaknesses (early on) and engine problems (later on).

Aaron_GT
01-30-2008, 03:39 AM
I do remember that the loss of this tego-film supplier is supposed to have signalled the death knell for the TA-154.

The story for that is also that the factory workers were peeing in the glue to make it fail, but whether that is actually true is another matter.

Waldo.Pepper
01-30-2008, 03:29 PM
I'm biased. I like the plane. But I am trying to reel it in and remain objective. Having said that, I cannot imagine how biased in favour of the plane Heinkel himself must have been. It has his name on it. So when he advocates for the plane, I couldn't really be surprised if it were found that he was minimizing its faults. I wonder about his, and his company representatives impartiality. I wonder if he is letting his ego interfere and I wonder if he has started to act as a cheerleader for his namesake. So merely finding a document that says that there is nothing that cannot be fixed. Despite its provenance does not impress me that much. Had it been a document from a more impartial source, now that would impress me.

Now having said all that. What does impress me is that as far as I can tell. He is right - and the problems in the initial pre-production machines that deal with glue do seem to have been ironed out. That may sound funny to some considering that some planes did break up in flight afterward. However, similar failures also happened to Typhoons/Bf-109F and P-51's, especially early in the careers of all these planes, when you exceeded parameters. Those three planes all had a chance to mature and for their gestation hurdles to be solved more completely than with the poor little Spatz.

I also think it is important to remember that no two machines are the same. There are always duds and lemons in any production group, of any plane. And for the He-162 I am pretty sure that there would be a higher rate of lemons in the group. But I can't tell, and I don't think anyone can tell the truth anymore. Even the participants who were there have divergent opinions.

I do think that Wiki overstates the problem (or perhaps too casually/briefly/incompletely deals with the problem with the glue. But the more I look at the plane the less confident in it I become. I think that any pilot would have great trepidation risking his life in it. More so than any other German plane made during the closing months of the war.

I think it worth mentioning that Brown and the others allied pilots who flew it had the extremely desirable luxury of time to pamper the plane before their evaluation flights (more so than the Luftwaffe pilots.) I think that lavishing TLC on the test planes had a calming effect on their nerves.

Given more time it may have matured into a plane that enjoyed a better reputation. But it never got the chance.

WOLFMondo
01-30-2008, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:


I think it worth mentioning that Brown and the others allied pilots who flew it had the extremely desirable luxury of time to pamper the plane before their evaluation flights (more so than the Luftwaffe pilots.)

Thats certainly the case although after reading Eric Browns autobiography I don't envy the fact he had to pilot a vast quantity of German aircraft to Britain with very little knowledge of those planes prior to those taxi flights.

PraetorHonoris
01-30-2008, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
I cannot imagine how biased in favour of the plane Heinkel himself must have been. It has his name on it. So when he advocates for the plane, I couldn't really be surprised if it were found that he was minimizing its faults. I wonder about his, and his company representatives impartiality. I wonder if he is letting his ego interfere and I wonder if he has started to act as a cheerleader for his namesake. So merely finding a document that says that there is nothing that cannot be fixed.

Really? Now explain me, why Ernst Heinkel should advocate the He162 to the development team of the He162, to which the Mitteilung vom 12.02.1945 was written to?
He is worried about a loss of reputation that could happen, telling his sorrows to the team. He is not defending it towards outsiders of the team.

And explain me, why should they fake an investigation report for internal affairs? That is far beyond my imagination.

There is nothing to back up Wiki's story of acidic glue - if you have, show it!
Bad glue: there is a basis in case of poor workmanship, but proper workmanship solved the problems.

Viper2005_
01-30-2008, 06:02 PM
I think that the He-162 may well have been a great fighter aircraft, but it was fundamentally unsuitable for its intended pilots...

Waldo.Pepper
01-30-2008, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
He is worried about a loss of reputation that could happen.

Thank you. That is in part what I was suggesting could have happened.


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
And explain me, why should they fake an investigation report for internal affairs? That is far beyond my imagination.

Nowhere did I even make the hint of any fakery. In fact I thought I had quite carefully chosen my words to NOT say that. If I need to be even clearer, I DO NOT THINK ANYONE FAKED ANYTHING! Is that clear?

What I was suggesting could have happened is what happens when any program is under threat of cancellation. Passionate opinions emerge. (Along the lines of the TSR2, Arrow or Lavi). Is that clear? Modest self-delusion only.


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
There is nothing to back up Wiki's story of acidic glue - if you have, show it!

Where did I say that there was? Why are you quoting what I wrote and demanding proof from me?


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
there is a basis in case of poor workmanship

Quite correct. No dispute here. Poor quality materials as well. Though I only find these types of faults and rejections of components for these reasons, for the pre-production machines.


Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
but proper workmanship solved the problems.

I would agree that this is likely correct. It was certainly asserted to at the time. However, if as we have already agreed the production team could have let their enthusiasm and the desperation of the times colour their opinion, for matters of reputation alone. Then I do not think it beyond possibility that production problems could have crept back into the finished planes. (Though this can happen with any plane.) I don't think I could blame anyone who had misgivings about flying the plane. Though if I had a chance today and if there were a 2 seater I would give serious consideration to a ride in one. How could I pass this up?

Like I have already stated. I don't think we will ever know the reality of the situation. Sadly not enough to satisfy your demands for proof. (What would constitute proof anyway?) In matters such as this I don't think that proof is possible.

PraetorHonoris
01-30-2008, 07:02 PM
So your words "he advocates for the plane" or "he was minimizing its faults"¯ or "he has started to act as a cheerleader for his namesake" are not proposing a potentially dishonest/untrue evaluation presented in the reports which I posted? Good, since I found that quite proposing "a hint of fakery"¯...

I ask, because you did not exactly contradict wiki's point of acidic glue earlier on, telling the quote had it's merits – which it has to EXTREMELY limited extend. It was only after my post you said, wiki overstates problems. Quite an understatement by yourself as wiki is dead wrong in most aspects.

It was only you who agreed on the dev. team letting it's enthusiasm and the desperation of the times colour their opinion (agreeing on oneself must be a nice feel...) .
I said Heinkel was worried about reputation in case of repeated poor workmanship (not in case of poor glue, read the stuff!), which he singled out as reason, no more. By that time, the Heinkel 162 was far away from being cancelled, as it had been confirmed as part of the Führernotprogramm of January 31 1945 on February 8 1945. As a sidenote, actually historians such as Peter Müller have noticed the very sober, almost uninvolved tone of the Heinkel team.

You are arguing on emotion (fear, self-delusion, passion), which you can hardly prove by the very nature of the claim. Yet all I say is the problems of the He162's glue are not even close to the ones stated by wiki – and hell, that I can prove.

PraetorHonoris
01-30-2008, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I think that the He-162 may well have been a great fighter aircraft, but it was fundamentally unsuitable for its intended pilots...

Hi Viper,

I guess you are referring to the glider boys. The problem is, that the whole story is very confusing and this confusion is increased by the few sources.
The basic outline seems to be like that
- Axmann and Keller (HJ/NSFK) had submitted their plan to use boys of NSFK glider school to counter a plan of Himmler to use SS pilots
- RLM seemed to agree in order to exclude SS from Luftwaffe programs
- a glider school for He162 preparation has been set up

So far the less disputed points. The much more disputed points are to what extend Heinkel used that plan for his own goals, i.e. keep the program running, and how serious RLM was.
The devlopement team always tried making the plane easier to control - just like every other, I'd say - but special references to HJ-boys are unknown to me. On the other hand, a He162 glider was designed, maybe a concession.

Anyway, many of these points become a matter of counterfactual history, since the OKL simply decided to cut off the fuel supply from the glider school before the He162 was in operational use (Diary of the OKL Chief of Staff, Feb. 24, 1945).
Could have been a fortunate coincedence, could have been reasoning of opponents against the idea. Whatever it was, the idea was pretty dead.