He-162 combat reports?
Kerryn Offord
was "not the easiest thing to fly" - Does anybody know of any
descriptions of flying the He-162 - training, testing, and/or combat?
Please, sufficient information to find the book/article/whatever.
I know their is a book written by some RAF type who flew a lot of the
captured German aircraft - does anybody know the author and title?
Thanks in advance.
Gordon
>descriptions of flying the He-162 - training, testing, and/or combat?
>Please, sufficient information to find the book/article/whatever.
>I know their is a book written by some RAF type who flew a lot of the
>captured German aircraft - does anybody know the author and title?
The good Captain Eric Brown's famous book, "Wings of the Luftwaffe", published
by Doubleday. ISBN # 0-385-13521-1. For details about its (lack of) combat
record, one of the easiest books to find is Osprey's "German Jet Aces of World
War 2" which for some unknown reason features the He-162 - it mentions that the
gestation period for this little bitch was less than 90 days from conception to
first flight, with the immediate results of three dead test pilots. So much
for expediency... The only unit to use the machine was JG 1, and during its
time in service (a mere 8 weeks), the unit lost 9 pilots killed and 5 wounded
in accidents, while suffering a single loss and scoring no victories in
"combat". In other sources, I have seen that one pilot insisted that he scored
a victory over a Typhoon but it was ruled as shot down by flak. Even the
Kommandeur of the II./JG 1 was killed in a training accident in this little
devil.
v/r
Gordon
George Kerevan
on the 162: I shall always recall the He 162 with affection". Yes it was
unstable..all the best fighters are.
(2) Given the confusions at the end of WW2, plus the lack of fuel, combat
reports of the 162 are limited but a handful of kills are probable.
(3) More interesting is the use of the BMW engine as the basis of the French
jet industry and as a powerplant for the early jet MIGs. The 162 did not fly
in vain.
GEORGE KEREVAN
Writer/Director of History Channel's Secret Aircraft of the Luftwaffe.
Randy Sweeney
George Kerevan wrote in message
<20000312104830...@ng-fg1.aol.com>...
>(1) Eric Brown's WINGS OF THE LUFTWAFFE (Airlife) reports his flight
experience
>on the 162: I shall always recall the He 162 with affection". Yes it was
>unstable..all the best fighters are.
In the hands of inexperience pilots?????
Bloody Viking
: (1) Eric Brown's WINGS OF THE LUFTWAFFE (Airlife) reports his flight experience
: on the 162: I shall always recall the He 162 with affection". Yes it was
: unstable..all the best fighters are.
He probably liked Volkwagen cars too, as well as liking the Volksjager.
Amazing how VW owners like VW-ness. (I own a VW myself, but it's a
Quantum, and it has nice accelleration, like a road-going VJ.)
: (2) Given the confusions at the end of WW2, plus the lack of fuel, combat
: reports of the 162 are limited but a handful of kills are probable.
The Volksjager was developed late in the war, and they found the
instability/hard-to-drive problem so it wasn't deployed much. Also, the
Allies figured out that the best time to take out a VJ was as it's taking
off so they put fighters close by to pull over the VJs.
The VJ was intended to be easy to fly, but the Deutschlanders failed
despite their engineering prowess. The idea of the VJ was to make a VW of
a fighter plane, but it took skill to drive the VJ. Nowadays, thanks to
electronics and kids who play video games, a VJ-style programme could
conceivably be done.
Of the few battle scenes in which an Allied plane met up with a VJ, the VJ
was quite formidable. But since it took a skilled pilot to fly/drive the
VJ, it saw little action.
: (3) More interesting is the use of the BMW engine as the basis of the French
: jet industry and as a powerplant for the early jet MIGs. The 162 did not fly
: in vain.
Sort of like how VW Bugs became the platform of "kit cars". I find the
irony of a BMW engine being used in a Volksjager to be funny. After all,
BMWs are real costly unlike the Old Bug. :) The VJ was a flying BMW!
: GEORGE KEREVAN
: Writer/Director of History Channel's Secret Aircraft of the Luftwaffe.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
Gordon
>Of the few battle scenes in which an Allied plane met up with a VJ, the VJ
>was quite formidable. But since it took a skilled pilot to fly/drive the
>VJ, it saw little action.
Actually, from the sources I have read, it had as few as three encounters with
Allied aircraft. The only victory claimed by a Heinkel 162 pilot was against a
Typhoon and the claim was denied - HQ gave credit for the destruction to the
flak sites that the Typhoon was attacking at the time. The 162 was chased on
rare occasion, but it was by no means formidable. It was simply an economic
and resource drain from more effective programs, such as the Me 262. Its value
as a point defense interceptor was substanially diminished due to its
requirement for a very long prepared runway - something in very short supply
during the last 6 months of the war.
v/r
Gordon
Pelzig
The following is taken from Jeffrey Ethell & Alfred Price's "World War II
Fighting Jets". I have extracted the combat record of the He 162 from their
text for the groups view.
April 15, 1945: Leutnant Rudolf Schmitt of I./JG 1, encounters a Spitfire and
successfully avoided combat with the British plane.
April 19, 1945: Feldwebel Guenther Kirchner of 1st. Gruppe credited with the
downing of a British aircraft, the pilot having been taken prisoner and telling
his captors he was downed by a single engined jet. However, Kirchner did not
live to revel in his victory, crashing upon landing and losing his life. 2nd.
Air Force recorded several losses on this day and it was not possible to verify
or deny the claim. British records do however, confirm the loss of Kirchner's
plane.
- Flying Officer Geoff Walkington of No.222 Squadron, flying a Tempest, reports
a single engined, twin fin fighter while he was attacking Husum airfield.
Walkington engages the jet but cannot close until the He 162 pilot makes a
fatal mistake by entering a sweeping turn to starboard, allowing the Tempest to
close and make a shot which brings the jet down.
April 20, 1945: Leutnant Rudolf Schmitt makes what is believed to be the first
and only use of the He 162's ejection seat. It could not be determined if this
was due to enemy action or aircraft problems. Schmitt's logbook shows his
flight as being 25 minutes, close to the maximum endurance. Pilot error due to
being lost and running out of fuel a fair certainty.
April 25, 1945: Schmitt and another pilot of I./JG 1 scramble to intercept
British Mosquitoes over Flensburg. Engagement unsuccessful.
April 26, 1945: Unteroffizier Rechenbach credited with a kill of an unknown
enemy aircraft which was confirmed by two independent witnesses. 2nd. Tactical
Air Force losses are recorded that day and cannot be refuted or verified.
May, 1945: Rudolf Schmitt shoots down a British Tempest over Rostock, the
Tempest being flown by Flying Officer M. Austin of No.486 Squadron. Austin
successfully bailed out and was taken prisoner. British records confirm the
victory.
May 5, 1945: Ceasefire declared, all He 162s of JG 1 grounded.
As for the comment about the He 162 being an economic and resource drain
compared to other programs, I have to disagree. The Me 262 had years of
development time behind it, the He 162 mere months from design to flying
prototype. Had time allowed, more advanced and enhanced varients of the He 162
were planned which would have made it an even more viable weapon platform. As
for resources, the He 162 required less critical material in its creation,
could be built by low-skilled or slave labor and needed only a single jet
engine, which, by this time, were few and far between. It could also be built
much faster. As for the economics, the He 162 was cheaper than the 262. The Me
262 was no novice plane either and required much "unlearning" by converting
pilots whom were used to prop planes and how they handled. The He 162 was no
different. And as for its effectiveness as a point defense fighter and needing
runways, the Me 262 wasn't much of a rough or unprepared field aircraft either
( foreign object ingestion being one issue ) and most operations were run from
paved surfaces, typically autobahns by the final weeks of the war.
My two cents. *grin*
Best,
Ed
Gordon
>enemy aircraft which was confirmed by two independent witnesses. 2nd.
>Tactical
>Air Force losses are recorded that day and cannot be refuted or verified.
Coincidences always fascinate me. I know that is a fairly common name, but
what do you think the odds are that two Unterofficiers with the same name were
flying jets on that day in the same sector? The 'other' pilot with the same
name was flying Me 262's, stationed (if you can call it that) at the Reinfeld
exit of the autobahn, although his flights included relocation and day flights
between there and Lubeck, ultimately being one of the men to surrender their
jets to the British at Schleswig. I have been searching for this guy for a
long time -- does the book mention his first name..?
One note that I think we should at least mention at this point is that,
witnesses or not, no confirmation was given by the Luftwaffe for victories
earned at this point (the last week of the war) -- all of the places where such
decisions were made were already overrun.
>May, 1945: Rudolf Schmitt shoots down a British Tempest over Rostock, the
>Tempest being flown by Flying Officer M. Austin of No.486 Squadron. Austin
>successfully bailed out and was taken prisoner. British records confirm the
>victory.
That's the one that German records insist was shot down by flak.
>As
>for resources, the He 162 required less critical material in its creation,
>could be built by low-skilled or slave labor and needed only a single jet
>engine, which, by this time, were few and far between.
Respectfully disagreed. The jet engines were not in short supply at all by
this time of the war -- using admittedly inferior materials, German industry
had fully spooled up in it's production of jet engines and there were many more
"turbos" available than there were completed aircraft. The jet engines were
considered consumable and were given only ~10 hours of operating time between
removal/depot service and the result was that advancing Allied soldiers found
Jumos and BMW engines stockpiled in very spread out locations -- functioning
automobile mechanic shops by this point in the war were tasked to service
components of the turbojets. In a case I am very familiar with, an
aquaintance of mine bellied in at Lubeck, fouling his Jumos (and his
Commander's mood!), necessitating a trip by truck to a car mechanic's shop to
retrieve a pair of replacements, and that was on May 2nd, so engines were
definitely available. Not so in 1944, of course, when they might have made a
difference (thankfully).
>As for the economics, the He 162 was cheaper than the 262.<
Very much so. But its tricky handling and slow firing pair of MK-108s made it
an ineffective fighter for 1v1 fighter combat and the bombing campaigns were
gradually coming to a halt by the time the Salamander entered service, so what
use could it have been? So, I would still have to question its
cost-effectiveness.
>The Me
>262 was no novice plane either and required much "unlearning" by converting
>pilots whom were used to prop planes and how they handled.<
Totally agreed. Even such thoroughly expert fighter pilots as Walter Schuck
had a devil of a time altering his attacks to make use of the Me-262 and its
withering firepower. Seasoned aces like Novotny were unable to make the
transition fast enough and were killed.
On the day of the Jet Massacre, Schuck downed four B-17s, but that was after a
frustrating period of time when he consistantly overran his intended targets.
He ended that Easter Sunday flight in his parachute after his remaining engine
exploded while attempting an emergency divert to the tiny grass strip at
Juterbog.
> The He 162 was no
>different. And as for its effectiveness as a point defense fighter and
>needing
>runways, the Me 262 wasn't much of a rough or unprepared field aircraft
>either
>( foreign object ingestion being one issue ) and most operations were run
>from
>paved surfaces, typically autobahns by the final weeks of the war.
Following the "Jet Massacre" on April 10th, when a huge formation of US heavy
bombers, supported by RAF units, virtually destroyed every operating jet
airfield in Northern Germany, there were only three viable jet bases left --
and the autobahn was scant refuge as the British set up near-constant roving
patrols over any areas that looked even vaguely capable of operating the needy
jets. As the bag collapsed, it becomes simply amazing that we didn't destroy
every last one of them.
v/r
Gordon
Pelzig
krzta...@aol.comMAYBENOT (Gordon) wrote:
> >As for the economics, the He 162 was cheaper than the 262.<
>
> Very much so. But its tricky handling and slow firing pair of MK-108s made
it
> an ineffective fighter for 1v1 fighter combat and the bombing campaigns were
> gradually coming to a halt by the time the Salamander entered service, so
what
> use could it have been? So, I would still have to question its
> cost-effectiveness.
I think the usage of the MK 108 cannon, despite the shortcomings, was that of
wanting as much damage done with as few rounds as possible. Granted, it made
gunnery difficult considering the effective range of the weapon ( heck, imagine
what the poor pilots of the Me 163 had to contend with ) and yes, it was not
the best of weapon for taking on other fighters but you cannot deny the heavy
damage a 30mm cannon shell can do to the target and I think that was probably
the main reason for using it. I'm sure there were other considerations,
however.
Of note, some of the He 162 were armed with the MG 151 20mm cannon when the
Soviets overran the MK 108 production facility, this according to David Myhra's
"Heinkel He 162". However, I'm apt to side with William Green in his "Warplanes
of the Third Reich" who states that the reason the MG 151 was used was because
the MK 108 cannon caused severe vibrations in the aircraft when fired, risking
structural damage. The 20mm cannon was made the standard weapon fit, beginning
with the He 162 V7 ( which was considered as an He 162A-1 aircraft ) for the He
162, not the MK 108. Efforts were made, however, to solve the vibration issue
with the MK 108 ( planes in the first four prototypes of the He 162 mounted the
30mm ). The He 162 V25 and V26 mounted the MK 108 and plans were made to mount
the MK 108s in the proposed He 162A-3 which would have had a reinforced and
restressed forward fuselage to handle the firing stress. One of the ways to
identify He 162s with the 20mm cannon is that the barrel extends two thirds of
the way out into the shroud.
I agree with your words on the engine supply. I did forget the fact that
engines were turned out in a good quantity ( heck, one photo in a book on the
Ta 154 shows a stack of jet engines piled up like wood ), but that _quality_
was an issue given the tolerances the motor had.
As for the book mentioning that officer's first name, it did not, else I'd have
put it in there. Sorry. :/
Best,
Ed
Gordon
>I think the usage of the MK 108 cannon, despite the shortcomings, was that of
>wanting as much damage done with as few rounds as possible.<
But, fighting a fighter, you don't want or need to be tossing 30mm mine shells
at a very slow rate of fire against a maneuvering high speed target -- you'd
want the faster firing 151 20mms. Even so, with a total armament load of only
two weapons (that were known to jam with alarming regularity due to yankin' and
bankin').
> Granted, it made
>gunnery difficult considering the effective range of the weapon ( heck,
>imagine
>what the poor pilots of the Me 163 had to contend with ) and yes, it was not
>the best of weapon for taking on other fighters but you cannot deny the heavy
>damage a 30mm cannon shell can do to the target and I think that was probably
>the main reason for using it. I'm sure there were other considerations,
>however.
My personal opinion is that they used the MK 108s because the a/c were
originally intended strictly for hitting the heavy bombers, which made very few
incursions within the range of the He-162s as the war spooled down in Northern
Europe. So, with their primary target gone, the 108-equiped 162s were
mis-armed.
>Of note, some of the He 162 were armed with the MG 151 20mm cannon when the
>Soviets overran the MK 108 production facility, this according to David
>Myhra's
>"Heinkel He 162". However, I'm apt to side with William Green in his
>"Warplanes
>of the Third Reich" who states that the reason the MG 151 was used was
>because
>the MK 108 cannon caused severe vibrations in the aircraft when fired,
>risking
>structural damage. The 20mm cannon was made the standard weapon fit,
>beginning
>with the He 162 V7 ( which was considered as an He 162A-1 aircraft ) for the
>He
>162, not the MK 108. Efforts were made, however, to solve the vibration issue
>with the MK 108 ( planes in the first four prototypes of the He 162 mounted
>the
>30mm ).<
I agree with the 'vibration theory' -- the 108 had a very low velocity shell
that caused a tremendous thump when fired: I can't recall at the moment, but
the pilots of MK-108 -equiped aircraft had some nickname for them that I
believe was the equivelent of 'jackhammer' or some such. Housed in a plywood
fuselage only a foot or two away from the pilot's butt, I would imagine the 162
did not serve as a very good platform for MK 108s.
>I agree with your words on the engine supply. I did forget the fact that
>engines were turned out in a good quantity ( heck, one photo in a book on the
>Ta 154 shows a stack of jet engines piled up like wood ), but that _quality_
>was an issue given the tolerances the motor had.
Yep - lots of engines, none of them worth a sh** :)
Tony Williams
krzta...@aol.comMAYBENOT (Gordon) wrote:
>
> But, fighting a fighter, you don't want or need to be tossing 30mm
mine shells
> at a very slow rate of fire against a maneuvering high speed target --
you'd
> want the faster firing 151 20mms. Even so, with a total armament load
of only
> two weapons (that were known to jam with alarming regularity due to
yankin' and
> bankin').
The MG 151/20 wasn't that much faster-firing; just over 700 rpm compared
with 600-650 rpm for the MK 108. The main problem with the MK 108
against fighters was its low muzzle velocity of 505 m/s as opposed to
800 m/s for the MG 151's M-Geschoss loading. US studies showed that a
50 percent increase in muzzle velocity could improve air-to-air hit
probability by 300 percent.
> I agree with the 'vibration theory' -- the 108 had a very low velocity
shell
> that caused a tremendous thump when fired: I can't recall at the
moment, but
> the pilots of MK-108 -equiped aircraft had some nickname for them that
I
> believe was the equivelent of 'jackhammer' or some such. Housed in a
plywood
> fuselage only a foot or two away from the pilot's butt, I would
imagine the 162
> did not serve as a very good platform for MK 108s.
Presslufthammer. I would be surprised if vibration was a major problem.
The API blowback mechanism did a good job of minimising recoil, and
fuselage mountings were better at coping with large cannon than wing
mountings - don't forget that some late versions of the little Bf 109
carried a pair of MK 108s underwing.
--
Tony Williams
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/
Military gun and ammunition website
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gordon
>The API blowback mechanism did a good job of minimising recoil, and
>fuselage mountings were better at coping with large cannon than wing
>mountings - don't forget that some late versions of the little Bf 109
>carried a pair of MK 108s underwing.
>Tony
I was unaware that the Kannonschiffen used 108s until tonight, after reading
your post -- I have seen a lot of documentation on the /R6 adaption kit that
added underslung MG 151/20mms to the Gustavs, but the far less known G-10/R5
(the one you mentioned) was considered a very short term experiment and total
failure -- by that point in the war, any 109 dragging underwing cannons up to
altitude was dead meat for the first Allied fighter that stumbled across it.
Tony, please (and no offense intended - I mean this as an honest question) can
you tell me if it was ever used successfully? The Luftwaffe pilots that had to
use the /R6 conversion of the G-6 thought of it as a near suicide machine due
to its inability to dogfight and that conversion had to be lighter than the
G-10/R5 with the 108s. Still, for bomber destroyer duty, the heavy punch
offered by the 108s had to at least *seem* appealing to the commanders on the
ground. The end of the war Bf-109K-6 actually carried the MK 108s inside the
wings, which had to help immensely, but every source I have seen states they
were simply no match for US escort fighters, and described as "heavy and
unwieldy". With less than two months of service (after April 7th, practically
the only machines giving battle were Me-262s or "s/e e/a" on their way to get
shot down), the K-6 was a year too late to deal with the bombers it was
designed to counter.
v/r
Gordon
Tony Williams
krzta...@aol.comMAYBENOT (Gordon) wrote:
> I was unaware that the Kannonschiffen used 108s until tonight, after
reading
> your post -- I have seen a lot of documentation on the /R6 adaption
kit that
> added underslung MG 151/20mms to the Gustavs, but the far less known
G-10/R5
> (the one you mentioned) was considered a very short term experiment
and total
> failure -- by that point in the war, any 109 dragging underwing
cannons up to
> altitude was dead meat for the first Allied fighter that stumbled
across it.
> Tony, please (and no offense intended - I mean this as an honest
question) can
> you tell me if it was ever used successfully?
I don't know - my speciality is the hardware rather than its use.
However, I know that the 109 was not originally designed for
wing-mounted armament and that its performance and handling were
significantly affected by hanging any cannon underwing, so I have no
reason to disagree with your point. The MK 108 was heavier and
bulkier than the MG 151 (60 kg rather than 42 kg) so the problem would
have been that much worse.
Not as bad as the often (wrongly) quoted fitting of MK 103s underwing
though - they weighed 140+ kg!
Incidentally, there was a proposed armament fit of one MG 151 under the
Bf 109's fuselage, synchronised to fire through the propeller disk. The
performance and handling penalties were much less than with the
wing-mounted gondolas, but it was canned because it required the
eletric-primed version of the MG 151 whereas the 109 always carried the
percussion primed version. The ammo wasn't interchangeable and they
didn't want to confuse the armourers.
Gordon
>performance and handling penalties were much less than with the
>wing-mounted gondolas, but it was canned because it required the
>eletric-primed version of the MG 151 whereas the 109 always carried the
>percussion primed version. The ammo wasn't interchangeable and they
>didn't want to confuse the armourers.
Yes - confusing the armorers is *never* a good thing. :)
I think by that point, most of the single engine attacks that were proving
successful were carried out by the Sturmjagers in their specially-prepared
FW-190 "tanks", the more heavily armed 109s intended to knock down bombers were
rarely used successfully after the fall of 1944. Using a cover of more lightly
armed Bf-109s as (a very thin) top cover allowed the more brutish FW 190As to
go after the bombers. Thankfully, the average flight experience level of the
crews manning them was pitiful and the US and RAF escorts had little trouble
dealing with them -- Oskar Boesch of Sturm./JG 4 was one of four survivors in
his group, which suffered 350% losses just in aerial combat. Adding additional
heavy cannons to these end of the war fighters only further reduced the life
expectancy of these guys on their way to the meat grinder. Even the vastly
improved Dora was of little help - the sheer numbers of Allied fighters was
completely overwhelming.
v/r
Gordon
Maury Markowitz
> the only machines giving battle were Me-262s or "s/e e/a" on their way to
> get shot down), the K-6 was a year too late to deal with the bombers
> it was designed to counter.
As was pretty much their entire war effort. A perfect example of what
happens when you're _re_active in war.
Maury
Bloody Viking
: In the hands of inexperience pilots?????
This was the problem with the VJ. It was not easy to fly. Two modern
ingredients were missing that could have made a VJ possible. Those are
fly-by-wire and teenagers who play "fly the Tomcat" video games. Without
these two items, the Deutchlanders were not able to build a successful VJ.
The idea behind the VJ was to try to replicate the success of the VW car
design, but with a fighter plane. Due to the instability and lack of
fly-by-wire, it was too hard to fly, particularly by teenagers who never
played video games. Given car computers now and modern teens, a VJ
programme might well work.
NOTE: VJ == Volksjager. (HE-162 Salamander)
anlushac11
required an experienced and delicate hand. There is a story of a VJ on a test
flight and encountering a P-51d and knocking it down with ease.
In article <hFRK4.6888$ZE4.1...@ord-read.news.verio.net>, nos...@masu.wwa.com
says...
Gordon
>required an experienced and delicate hand. There is a story of a VJ on a test
>
>flight and encountering a P-51d and knocking it down with ease.
Story, yes. The turning radius of the 162 precludes any dogfighting. Wing
loading was incredible, stall characteristics completely unforgiving... Captain
Eric Brown of the RAF said he found it a delight to fly, but he included the
caveat that only the most experienced pilots could handle it. Its landing
characteristics were unpredictable and in flight, the 162 was most capable of
what it was expressly designed for -- high speed attacks without much maneuver,
targeting Allied bombers.
Jukka O. Kauppinen
> >
> >flight and encountering a P-51d and knocking it down with ease.
>
> Story, yes. The turning radius of the 162 precludes any dogfighting. Wing
> loading was incredible, stall characteristics completely unforgiving... Captain
> Eric Brown of the RAF said he found it a delight to fly, but he included the
> caveat that only the most experienced pilots could handle it. Its landing
> characteristics were unpredictable and in flight, the 162 was most capable of
> what it was expressly designed for -- high speed attacks without much maneuver,
> targeting Allied bombers.
BUT, and the big BUT,
I remember a P-51 pilot combat report where he met a Heinkel 162
and fought a dogfight with it.
The report says that the Heinkel jet easily turned WITH the P-51 and
outclimbed/outaccelerated it. Neither was able to gain edge and
both the flew their own ways.
So, after also reading Ernst Heinkel's book (not that every word
of it can be taken at face value) and after consuming loads of other
material about that plane, it still must be said that the plane
was better than is generally thought. At least after they managed
to cure the problems of the prototypes and first batch.
jok
Bloody Viking
: Story, yes. The turning radius of the 162 precludes any dogfighting. Wing
: loading was incredible, stall characteristics completely unforgiving... Captain
: Eric Brown of the RAF said he found it a delight to fly, but he included the
: caveat that only the most experienced pilots could handle it. Its landing
That was the damn problem with the VJ. It's like it was too modern for the
times. It needed fly-by-wire technology to make it easier to drive. The
attempt at a useful VJ type plane required fly-by-wire as well as
teenagers "expierenced" by playing video games, two modern items the
Deutschlanders didn't have.
Come to think of it, if you want good fighter jocks, you need to look for
Domino's Drivers, especially the type who worked during the time of the
infamous 30 minute guatentee. In that case, you find natural speeders. Add
fly-by-wire to your VJ and let them play fighter plane games, and you have
fighter jocks. (: (I'm a former Domino's Driver of the guarentee era,
and normally drive like the stereotypical fighter jock as a result.)
John L.
krzta...@aol.comMAYBENOT (Gordon) wrote:
..
The turning radius of the 162 precludes any
> dogfighting. Wing
> loading was incredible, stall characteristics completely
> unforgiving...
loading was not greatly different than the Me109 series and
lighter than the FW190A and D series.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
justint...@gmail.com
Peter Stickney
Here's the thing - I've got the logbook summaries of all flights of the
He 162s flown by the French at the end of the war. The longest flight on
record is 25 minutes. So - what airfield would be less than 60 miles
from an He 162 base?
--
Peter Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:94f8566a-4586-416c...@googlegroups.com...
> tried to intercept me 262s escorting a he162 but all shot out of range.
> They must have been experienced as none of them turned.
> Geoffrey walkington claimed a he 162 strafing a airfield this was
> Kirchner. The he 162 was able to escape walkingtons tempest and
> he was not able to close in. The he 162 made a wild maneuver and
> because of this stalled and crashed the pilot was upside down and
> too low and his ejection seat shot into the ground. Walkingtons claim
> was not even a real TRUE kill.
as damaged on the ground, 1 He177, 1 Ju88, 1 Me110, 1 Ju52 and 5
He111 as well as 1 He111 destroyed on the ground. Flying Officer
Walkington also claimed an unidentified aircraft destroyed in the air.
The second German pilot present stated Kirchner was his wingman
and was shot down by a P-47, the pilot ejected but the parachute
failed to deploy.
The Typhoon and Tempest Story by Thomas and Shores give the location
of the air combat as Husum (so the other side of the peninsula, almost
due west of Schleswig), and "believed to be He162 of I/JG1" With I/JG1
reported to be based at Leck, maybe 35 km north of Husum.
There are reports that Fw. G. Kirchner claimed a P-47 on this date over
Northern Germany
11 April 1945, a kill claim over Fassberg airfield by Sqn Ldr E B Lyons
of 222 squadron in a Tempest. Fighter Command War Diaries do not
name the pilot but suggests the victim was possibly a He162 of I/JG 1
flown by Feldwebel Mann who was reported missing. The 2nd TAF
claims report I have also does not have the RAF pilot's name, only that
a Ranger to Fassburg Airfield by 222 squadron resulted in claims of
1 jet destroyed in the air and 1 on the ground. Fassburg is about 70
km south of Hamburg.
> Rudolph Schmitt opened fire on a tempest or typhoon and British
> records were able to verify this claim as the pilot reported being
> shot down by a new unidentified type.
a Tempest, which was also claimed by flak.
Relevant RAF combat losses that day:
1 Typhoon to flak, 1 Tempest to engine failure, with the note this seems
to be claimed by an He162 pilot. The Tempest JN877 came down near
Satrup, near the Danish/German border according to Fighter Command
Losses or Barsinghausen according to Fighter Command War Diaries, the
He162 pilot reported the combat at Barsinghausen, which is near Hannover.
Unless there is smaller place in Northern Germany also called Barsinghausen.
Satrup is about 20 km north of Schleswig and under 20 km from the Danish
border.
Note by 4 May the front line was well beyond Hannover which was
captured on 10 April, it was in fact beyond Hamburg, captured on 3 May.
> There was one other claim made by a he 162 that was verified. I need to
> find the action report on this one but someone here has mentioned it
> already. A rare incident was a he 162 downing a Yak9 although this
> encounter is obscure and I couldn’t seem to find any action reports for
> this one.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.