|
Description
| Manufacturer: | Heinkel | |
| Base model: | He 162 | |
| Designation: | HE 162 | |
| Version: | A-1 | |
| Nickname: | Volksjager | |
| Basic role: | Fighter (Germany) | |
| Crew: | Pilot | |
Specifications
| Length: | 29' 6" | 9.0 m | |
| Height: | 8' 6' | 2.6 m | |
| Wingspan: | 23' 7" | 7.2 m | |
| Wingarea: | 120.6 sq ft | 11.2 sq m | |
| Empty Weight: | 3,667 lb | 1,663 kg | |
| Gross Weight: | 5,490 lb | 2,490 kg | |
Propulsion
| No. of Engines: | 1 | ||
| Powerplant: | BMW 003E-1 | ||
| Thrust (each): | 1,764 lb | 800 kg | |
Performance
| Max Speed: | 519 mph | 835 km/h | 451 kt |
| Climb: | 4,200 ft/min | 1,280 m/min | |
| Ceiling: | 39,440 ft | 12,020 m | |
Examples of this type may be found at
| Museum | City | State |
| The Air Museum "Planes of Fame" | Chino | California |
HE 162A-1 on display
The Air Museum "Planes of Fame" |
Recent comments by our visitors
| Richard Edkins , OTH | The RAF tested the He162 and said that it would have been hard to spot and hit through being so small and would have run rings round the Gloster Meteor.
Galland wanted more Me262 fighters and frankly it was not in his interest to encourage diversion of resources from the Swallow to the Sparrow. In view of the fact that the Spatz\'s one kill was an RAF fighter, I would hesitate to write it off as a rear-view catastrophe. The Warthog was nearly as bad to look at but its combat record has been remarkable. Bear in mind that the high speed of the Spatz would have let it outrun all but a very few Allied piston-engined fighters on its tail. I for one am very glad it was \'too little, too late\'. There is a lesson here, incidentally. Swarms of cheap and basic \'monkey version\' fighters like a modern Spatz might be a better defence and attack system than handfuls of highly-expensive super-aircraft. Regard the fighter as a platform and let a swarm of missiles do the dogfighting with a super-aircraft. You only have to be lucky once, whilst the pilot of the super-aircraft has to be lucky all of the time. 08/07/2007 @ 02:43 [ref: 17496] |
| George , WA | Say, Jim W. The P-51A was not a \"mediocre\" aircraft. At altitudes below 20,000\' it was a hot ship hitting 400mph in 1941.
The XB-17 crash was caused by pilot error. He took off with the flight control locks in place! The He162A-1 was simply not a very good aircraft. Even if the glue issue was resolved... The engine had a life of 10 hours or less. Engine placement blocked all rearward visibility. A huge problem for a combat airctaft. Production of the 162 used much needed resources that were better used on the outstanding Me-262A. Structually, the aircraft was weak. Pilots loved aircraft like the P-47 and F-6F because they dould absorb combat damage and get them home. A couple of hits on the 162 and it\'s all over! At least the pilot had an ejecton seat... No less an expert than Luftwaffe General Galland thought the Heinkel should have been canceled. 12/31/2006 @ 00:54 [ref: 15048] |
| Jim W Waynesboro, VA | He 162a is quite an interesting aircraft, proposed tested and produced in about 3 months it is a lesson in management techniques. The plane which was tested by some of England's top test pilots after the war received good reviews. It was rated a stable gun platform and with an "experienced pilot" would have been formidible. The glue that bound it was initially to acidic and caused the wooden features of the aircraft to decay and fail. The Germans recognized this and allegedly fixed the problem. One thing people must remember is many truely great airplanes had significant teething problems. The famous P51 was mediocre until mated to a British Merlin engine. One of the initial B17 prototypes crashed during testing. If these aircraft had been reviewed soon after their conception many would have shaken their heads and said don't waste the dollars building these failures. 12/30/2006 @ 11:30 [ref: 15044] |
| George , WA | "The Heinkel 162 - so-called "Volksjager"- was only one jet engine on top of the fuselage, behind the cockpit. This was a mistake of the same magnitude as the mistake to use the 262 as a fighter-bomber."
Adolf Galland "Pratically, the 162 had serious combats, uh, I would say a maximum of 10 times. It wasn't ready to go. There was an average time of 12 hours between engine changes." Adolf Galland http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/adolf_galland.html If JSL thinks the 162 was a great design he should consider what Adolf Galland, the man in charge of the Luftwaffe fighter forces thought of it. 10/12/2006 @ 21:38 [ref: 14438] |
| JSL Sydney, WA | I have always loved interesting German WWII aircraft, and the He 162 is a favourite. Eric Brown wrote a wonderful piece on flying this thing years ago, and actually loved it (although I think his choice german jet was the Ar 234). The 162 was apparantly delightful to fly with a phenomonal rate of roll. He spent hours flying it for fun after his offical evaluation was completed just doing aero's. The nasty habits everyone talks about were primarily related to its extremely light control forces - which also made it such fun to fly. The German test pilots who briefed him warned him about the rudder pedals and to treat them with caution, as inflight breakages had occured at high speed. It was of course made of wood, and just looking at those tail booms one thinks they could not be all that strong! Aside from being careful with the rudders Eric raved about how good it was, and had no other handling flaws - remarkable for a high speed early jet fighter. He was careful however to say that it would NOT have suited semi ab initio pilots experiencing combat for the first time. The whole problem with the German war effort is it was over engineered when simpler items in volume would have probably worked better. If this aircraft (or ones like it) had been developed earlier (and they could have been) the Luftwaffe may well have stopped daylight raids in their tracks. Would any of the stormbird.com guys want to build one? I'd love to fly it! 03/20/2006 @ 07:50 [ref: 12865] |
| Nelci caxias do Sul, OTH | Vocês possuem o projeto do Heinkel HE 162A-1 pois gostaria de construir um prototipo.
Obrigado ! Nelci 02/03/2006 @ 06:38 [ref: 12401] |
| George Fruhling Jr. , WA | Proably the most famous moment in the brief history of this aircraft was a high speed flyby of the prototype in front of nazi bigwigs. The aircraft came apart due to structural (glue) failure. German pilots had enough to worry about as it was!
Even without structural problems I doubt this aircraft would have been sucesful. First off, the engine location blocks visibility to the rear. In a fighter aircraft this is a major flaw. (Check six!) At a time when jet engine technology was in its infancy, a single engine was probably not a very good idea as well. They were not very reliable. The Jumo 004, for example, had a lifespan between overhauls of as low as 10 hours. Throttle response was EXTREMELY SLOW as well as well. Anyone who has operated a turbo-jet with the fuel control in the "manual" setting will know what I'm talking about. Rapid throttle movement results in a compressor stall, an overtemp, or both. Yet another flaw was a lack of speedbrakes. With a clean airframe and no propeller, this aircraft would take some time to slow down for landing. This meant a long landing approach. With the slow engine spool up the aircraft was VERY vulnerable. Throw in the limited rearward visibility and you have a sitting duck! No less an authority than Adolf Galland thought the He-126 was a waste of resources better spent on the Me-262. As a final thought, it seems unlikely that having Hitler Youth fly in combat was ever SERIOUSLY considered! 06/12/2005 @ 18:33 [ref: 10457] |
| Mick, the P-51 Pilot Chicago, IL | The idea of a "volksjager" makes sense. Happily for the Allies, however, a few items were missing. The idea was to duplicate the success of the Volkswagen with a plane. Alas, kids had no flight sim expierence (unlike now)so it was too difficult to train kids to fly it. Also, there was no cohort of Domino's Drivers with a need for speed.
To make matters better for the Allies, the plane was cheap, but NOT easy to fly, which was a design goal. The goal was to try to make a cheap and easy to fly plane. Lacking modern avionics, the task proved impossible, much to the delight of the Allies. Also, it was sluggish on takeoff, allowing Allies pilots to shoot them down just as they leave the runway. Think of how sluggish a Concorde is in Flight Sim on takeoff before you build up speed. During the war, the Germans were pretty innovative, ahead of their time. With cruise missiles (the V-1 buzz bomb) and V-2 ballistic missile, they lacked the nukes. If they won the race to build a nuke, we would likely all be speaking German. As it stands now, we Yanks could easally become the Fourth Reich, with ALL the ingredients to make a successful Volksjager, plus we have the nuke-tipped buzzbombs and missiles. All we need is a fuerher - and we have Bush for that! 02/06/2005 @ 14:10 [ref: 9378] |
| David Turner Cardiff, Wales, AB | A fine example of the HE162 Peoples Fighter is on display in Duxford museum in London. According to some reports, the HE162 did actually see combat in April 1945, shortly before the end of the war and the capture of it\'s operational bases. Two victories (at least) were claimed including a RAF Mosquito fighter. The HE162 was reported as a very stable gun platform and was intended to engage US fighter escorts to allow the ME262 jet fighters to attact the bombers. It\'s structual flaws were mainly as a result of late war material shortages. It was designed to be mass produced and to be flown by inexperienced pilots (Hitler Youth etc.) with it\'s speed making up for lack of combat skills. Probobaly not a very good idea! 01/14/2005 @ 07:15 [ref: 9140] |
| David McGuire SF, CA | Saw example in Silver Springs facility. Salamander or Volksjaeger was also
tested in Britain at war's end and killed at least one ex- perienced RAF pilot. Jet engine being mounted above fuselage caused a certain amount of instability, so a/c tended to want to roll over without much input, indicating it was not actually ready for operational service. For fun, fly one in Electronic Arts' "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe" game. 08/27/2000 @ 16:31 [ref: 669] |
Recent photos uploaded by our visitors
