Heinkel He 162 projects and variants

[GTX]

Hi folks,

I recently came across the following:

"A two-seat version [of the He-162] was quickly developed for training purposes. It was equiped with rudimentary dual controls, a larger wing and an additional 28sq.ft of area. Its vertical fins were enlarged, and the landing gear fixed in the down position. New wing/fuselage fillets were also added and a wide variety of cannon and rocket armament tested."

Up until now, I didn't know of any two seat He-162 versions. Any one know anything else or even have a drawing?

Regards,

Greg

 

[Andreas Parsch]

Up until now, I didn't know of any two seat He-162 versions. Any one know anything else or even have a drawing?

There was the unpowered He 162S training glider, of which a few prototypes were built. A drawing can be found at http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=3065.

There might well have been powered two-seaters of the drawing board, too. E.g. H.J. Nowarra ("Die deutsche Luftrüstung 1933-1945") claims that the He 162D was to be a two-seater, but the D variant is usually described as a forwar-swept wing version.

Andreas

 

[Dronte]

-He162S photo

(sorry, I don't have the source)

 

[Dronte]

This version [conversion training] did not bear any "official" type designation; usually it was referred to as the "Doppelsitezer". The aircraft powered by the BMW 003E-1 engine, was to manufactured by DLH (...) the original single-seat cockpit was to be retained (...) The instructor seat non-ejecting) was situated in the area behind the standard seat, where usually the ammunition and oxygen bottle were located (the main fuselage tank partially extended into this area. The Doppelsitzer's cannons were removed (to allow for the placement of the instructor's rudder pedals), and the capacity of fuel tank was reduced.(...) The He 162 Doppelsitzer was intensively worked on, however, it was not finished before the end of the war.(...)

(source: Heinkel He 162 Spatz - Miroslav Balous-Miroslav BíLý- MBI)

 

[hesham]

Hi,

Other He-162 variants under consideration included the "He-162C", with the B-series fuselage, Heinkel-Hirth 011A engine, swept wing, and "vee" or "butterfly" tail assembly; and the "He-162D", with a similar configuration but a forward-swept wing. They were to me armed with twin MK-108 30 millimeter cannon, and a scheme was considered in which the cannon could be pivoted upward from the horizontal, allowing the fighter to fire at a bomber while flying under it.
The He-162C and He-162D got no farther than a half-completed prototype that could be fitted with interchangeable forward-swept or back-swept wings, discovered by the Allies when they occupied the plant at Schwechat. In fact, the only advanced variant of the He-162 that was actually flown was the "He-162E", which was an He-162A fitted with the BMW-003R mixed power plant, which was a BMW-003A with an integrated BMW-718 liquid-fuel rocket engine for boost power. At least one prototype was built and flight-tested for a short time.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avhe162.html

 

[Jemiba]

Here are drawings of the E (from FlugRevue 1978) and the C and D (from
Flugzeug 5/1995). It should be noted, that at least at the time those articles
were written, it wasn't clear, if construction of the C/D/E-variants was ever
started. Even vectorsite just mentiones, that "interchangeable wings" were dis-
covered, not actual prototypes. In the drawings the "C" and "D" are just described
a windtunnel studies and for those interchangeable wings would make sense.

 

[sagallacci]

The various sources don't seem to have a consensus about the shape of the He162B fuselage, which was to be a stretch of the basic unit for extra fuel capacity, nor the size and shape of the HeS011 engine cowl, though it that case, it looks like everyone gets it wrong.
The '162E is even more tricky, as the BMW003R has the rocket motor mounted on the jet engine, with the fuel feed driven by direct power take offs from the engine accessory drive. I'd wonder if the motor wasn't still fitted to the jet engine with the thrust line inclined to make up for the raised position. The lower rear fuselage did have provision for RATO boosters, and could have post war interpretation assumed the rocket motor would be mounted there too? The value of the '003R was the all-in-one package, a remote mount of the rocket motor would mean a separate drive for the fuel pumps and such. On the other, other hand, the idea of a rocket motor there on a BMW-powered jet simply assume it was the '003R, when other small liquid fuel motors were available?

 

[hesham]

Hi,

a models for them.

 

[Bailey]

Hi Hersham, another 3 view, this time from Warplanes of the Third Reich - William Green.

Regards Bailey.

 

[Bailey]

You might like these links as well:-

http://www.hyperscale.com/galleries/2001/he162dgh_1.htm

http://www.luft46.com/duart/lufartdu.html

Cheers Bailey.

 

[Wasp]

Just to add my 2cents on the He 162 E type, I have to go along with sagallacci's posting.

The drawing from Flug Revue doesn't make any sense to me.
As sagallacci explained so eloqently, the benefit and working order of the BMW 003 R was the engines build as a combined package, so with this engine you could never get the exhaust somehow suddenly out on the lower rear end side of the fuselage.
As for the use of another small rocket engine to get the configuration shown, I doubt that there was the space to put it in somewhere. If you check the drawing, the rocket nozzles start almost immediatly after the retracktable undercarriage, so where should the engine itself sit? Especially one with two exhausts or even two single engines? In my opinion the drawing is indeed inspired by the Ratos used and not the actual E design with some integrated rocketengines.

So, why not a true BMW 003 R with the rocket exhaust within the package on the back of the He 162?

 

[hesham]

Hi,


was this Heinkel He-162 S-2 a real project or not ?;


http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?topic=31367.15

 

[alfakilo]

Does anyone have a picture of the 162 that has lightsabers mounted on the wingtips? Now, that would be something to see!

 

[richard]

Hello Hesham


For me , The He 162 S2 is a fake ...
I don't like those UNDECLARED "what if " : they are often quite interesting , BUT should be declared as " What if "...


Cheers


Richard

 

[Stargazer]

I agree. A project that has no clear label, especially if it's a plastic one, ought to be treated with the utmost wariness.

Only a couple of days ago, I realized that an April's fool joke I did three years ago on a forum has developed a life of its own... to the extent that several forums and even a respected professional magazine took it as fact. And now it's impossible to dismiss it. I admitted to the joke at the time... I retitled the pages with the words "April's fool", explained clearly that it was a hoax... but still. There are and there will be hundreds of people around the world that the DeLorean DMC-12 was once meant to become the AMC/Renault Alpine A2000... :-[

Le Fana de l'aviation used to have those yearly April's fool jokes, but they shied away from it now, presumably because it's impossible to invalidate such information once it's been spread.

 

[Jemiba]

",,, These things were an F-80 C pilots worst nightmare. Nicknamed the "Scissor Tail" by allied pilots,
the S-2 was greatly feared."

I think, that's more or less an evidence, that it's a fake.
We had to deal with fakes and misinterpreted jokes quite often in the past and probably will have to
in the future again. So I'm thinking about a thread listing known fakes (which are claimed to be real
in certain sources !) sorted by "manufacturer".
Could form a kind of database and maybe prevent someone from being fooled. I would propose, to put
it as a sticky thread into the "Theoretical and Speculative" section.
Any ideas, opinions or rejections ?

 

[hesham]

Thank you my dears for the explanations.

 

[Stargazer]

",,, These things were an F-80 C pilots worst nightmare. Nicknamed the "Scissor Tail" by allied pilots,
the S-2 was greatly feared."

I think, that's more or less an evidence, that it's a fake.
We had to deal with fakes and misinterpreted jokes quite often in the past and probably will have to
in the future again. So I'm thinking about a thread listing known fakes (which are claimed to be real
in certain sources !) sorted by "manufacturer".
Could form a kind of database and maybe prevent someone from being fooled. I would propose, to put
it as a sticky thread into the "Theoretical and Speculative" section.
Any ideas, opinions or rejections ?

Good idea! Le Fana's pranks, for a start, can be listed quite easily:

• Klagenfurt Klf 255
• Kawa Sori
• Suzuki 18-Shi MXS12
• North American Exo-7 (floatplane T-6)
• Monaco Airways Westland Lysander

I'm not aware of any more in the series after that.

 

[Jemiba]

Not to highjack this thread, but with "manufacturer", I actually meant the company, which is
stated to have designed or built the faked aircraft, in this case it would be Heinkel. Would be
too difficult, I think, to try to get to know the first publication, especially as such things are
often spread around worse than measles !

 

[SlickDriver]

Not to highjack this thread, but with "manufacturer", I actually meant the company, which is
stated to have designed or built the faked aircraft, in this case it would be Heinkel. Would be
too difficult, I think, to try to get to know the first publication, especially as such things are
often spread around worse than measles !

Didn't we already do that in one the sections - like the Twin-engined P-40 that Curtiss created by adding two cowlings to the wings of an engineless P-40?

 

[Jemiba]

If the twin-engined P-40 would have been able to fly , remains open to question, but as far as we
know, it actually was mock-up produced by Curtiss (see http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,509.msg3709.html#msg3709,
so not a fake. There were mock-ups and concept drawings of weirder constructions, that quite probably
never would have left the ground. But as they actually came from an aviation company, or at least a
professional designer, we have to accept them as project, or at least as concept.
Fakes on the other hand are falling into two categories: Those, which were made intentionally, either just
to spoof aviation fans, or sometimes even to make money (the Heinkel mid-engine fighter and the "Lippisch
Gleiter Bombenflugzeug" could be examples of that kind) and those others (probably the majority), that were
only April fools, or other jokes, but misinterpreted by someone, claimed to be real and since then "leading
a life in reality" !

 

[Taranov]

Found something

 

[Jemiba]

AFAIK, this version was at least a true project, although not actually built. Sources differ, as it was to have
been designated He 162C or D.

 

[Johnbr]

The prototype was being made to take both the C and D wings.

 

[Jemiba]

The prototype was being made to take both the C and D wings.

That's stated in several sources, but denied in others and comparing both variants directly
makes this solution quite unrealistic, I think, as it would have meant, to move the whole mainspar
backwards.
(split view made from drawings on http://www.luft46.com/ghart/gh162d-6.jpg and
http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/ww2planes/heinkel/23084/view/heinkel_he_162_projekt/ )

 

[taildragger]

The prototype was being made to take both the C and D wings.

That's stated in several sources, but denied in others and comparing both variants directly
makes this solution quite unrealistic, I think, as it would have meant, to move the whole mainspar
backwards.
(split view made from drawings on http://www.luft46.com/ghart/gh162d-6.jpg and
http://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/ww2planes/heinkel/23084/view/heinkel_he_162_projekt/ )

Yeah, but remember that this airplane famously went from concept to flight in 90 days - the structural design might have been sufficiently imprecise to create this sort of adaptability as a side benefit. The spar of either wing would be well placed to mate with what must have been heavy structure between the engine and landing gear.

 

[Jemiba]

Good clue ! Main landing gear and spar could well be attached to the same fuselage frame, which
then probably was beefed up sufficiently. And so it could have been the logical main attachement point
for the engine as well. But to cater for absorbing large loads on other popints would have meant to build
in additional weight and used up additional man-hours during production, both points not very probable
for an aircraft, which should be produced as fast as possible and using as few (strategic relevant) materials
as possible.
But I really don't know for sure, so maybe during the coming Easter holidays, I'll just visit the Technikmuseum Berlin
(technical museum Berlin) with a jigsaw and have a direct look into their newly aquired He 162 ! ;D

 

[Artie Bob]

" Main landing gear and spar could well be attached to the same fuselage frame, which
then probably was beefed up sufficiently." No need to guess if you are really interested. The US NASM archives has a pretty extensive set of original factory drawings on microfilm, 40 or 50 sheets IIRC. Be very careful of using books to research anything to do with WWII Luftwaffe. There are many good ones published in the last 20 years, but just as many really awful ones. It is a pity when there is so much primary source material available in Germany, Great Britain and the USA.
Best Regards,
Artie Bob

 

[toura]

Following JENS December 23 2009
I've found this a long time ago I don't remember where

 

[toura]

This one is true or fake ?????
And the "s" a trainer without engine ??

 

[Jemiba]

The "He 162D" as a twin-seat trainer and the "He 162S" as single-seat engineless trainer,
I've found in "Waffenarsenal" N° 85, too, but don't dare to rate the credibility.
The photo of the twin-seat glider is from Kens/Novarra "Die deutschen Flugzeuge 1933-1945)

 

[toura]

Yes Jens, but my "S" is a twoseaters !

 

[toura]

and is this one true ??

 

[Jemiba]

Yes Jens, but my "S" is a twoseaters !

As I expressed, I have some doubts about this single-seat glider, too ! Would have been an easy
conversion, of course, but what for ? At least as an actually built variant, I only know the one,
you've posted.
As a variant with a Jumo 004 engine, I've found the A8, not the A9, but it seems to be actually
planned.

 

[toura]

THANKS jENS
Your drawing is single seater glider but your photos seems to be
a two seaters ?
Bye ...a good week end

 

[Jemiba]

The drawing from the "Waffenarsenal" issue shows just an engineless He 162,
obviously still fitted with a retractable landing gear, whereas the photo shows the same
glider, you posted, too.
Not sure about structural identity with the jet version, as there are several differences:
No drooped wingtips, simpler fins and, of course the simple fixed landing gear. As this
trainer wouldn't have to bear the loads of the powered version, a structure much more
similar to a conventional glider would have been sufficient. Anybody more information
about this point?

 

[Stargazer]

I'm really intrigued that one of the best known German aircraft ever can still be a subject of interrogation and hold so many mysteries after nearly 70 years and so much research done on the subject! I guess that's part of why I love this forum...

 

[Jemiba]

I think, the problem is just, that there are too many differing sources around ! There are
some books, too, e.g. written by Peter Müller ("Heinkel He 162 Volksjäger - Letzter Versuch
der Luftwaffe") or by Manfred Griehl ("Heinkel He 162-Volksjäger") which are said to be the
definitive source about this theme, but I don't know them, perhaps someone can give a clue,
about a really trustworthy one ?
About the structure and details of the built versions, there should be no questions, because,
as Artie wrote, there is still primary source material available and even surviving aircraft around,
which were disassembled, put together again and restored.
The problems are mostly with those variants planned, or sometimes actually built in single examples.
Here really reliable sources may become sparse. For example the photo of the glider I've posted, looks
somewhat retouched, at least it's too old to be photoshopped ! :

 

[Stargazer]

For example the photo of the glider I've posted, looks
somewhat retouched, at least it's too old to be photoshopped ! :

Before Photoshop, some really crafty photographers used to retouch or doctor photos with primitive, analogic techniques, so the fact that personal computers didn't exist doesn't mean that fakes didn't either!

 

[Jemiba]

That's what I wanted to express. Back then, people, who made fakes often were
ordered to do so by higher authorities, but the results in most cases are easier to tell,
then today, I think.