Talk:Heinkel He 162/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Some of the info here has been adapted from public domain text at http://www.vectorsite.net/avhe162.html. --GeneralPatton 12:15, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) That site has moved; the new URL is http://www.airvectors.net/avhe162.html Ewilen (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

A range of 975km (~60 miles), a speed of 900km/h (~560 mph) and the flying time and the "30-minute fuel capacity" cited in the article does not work out. Can this be cross checked?

What does "highest tactially [sic] useful Mach number" mean? And what is a "flight envelope"? Grant65 (Talk) 11:17, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Your confusion over range is a terminology issue. The article referrs to "operational endurance was to be at least a half hour", operational endurance is the time the aircraft can spend at its operational altitude, and thus does not include the fuel burned taking off and landing. Low-endurance aircraft burn most of their fuel on the way up (I believe a typical trip in a Lear burns about 45% during climb, I could look it up for sure). So while the aircraft can only spend 30 minutes at altitude, its overall "engine on" time would be greater. Enough to explain these numbers I'd guess. As to flight envelope, have a read! Maury 23:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

Added some info on He-162's currently in existance, there are actually quite a few of them. I've included Werk Numbers if possible. --Evil.Merlin 15:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

Can somebody identify the P1073's chief designer? Trekphiler 00:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Albert Speer

in his autobiography "inside the third reich" speer states that he had no part in the project . however in this article its stated that he fully supported it. Peppermintschnapps (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction...

I removed the "second jet fighter" blurb. Its a bit confusing, and really does not add anything.--Evil.Merlin 20:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Purpose

According to Eric "Winkle" Brown, the He 162 was specifically developed as a low altitude fighter to combat the high-speed low-level 'hit and run' attacks that were being carried out against Germany by aircraft such as the Mosquito, Tempest and Thunderbolt. As-such, the He 162 was therefore optimised for low-altitude operations, and was not intended for use at high altitude against the US daylight raids, that was what the Me 262 was to be used for. It was because of these low-level attacks on the Luftwaffe's airfields that the He 162 was required to be able to use the autobahns, if-needed, for take-off and landing.

What does "highest tactially [sic] useful Mach number" mean? - it refers to the highest Mach number that can be usefully used in combat, i.e., the highest Mach Number that still allows the aircraft to manoeuvre (Manoeuvring Mach number) , as opposed to the Critical Mach number (Limiting Mach number) which refers to the highest Mach number that can be reached, above-which, the aircraft can no longer be controlled by the average pilot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.10 (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

translation error?

As far as "Volksjäger" supposedly meaning "People's Fighter", I think a more accurate translation would be people's hunter. No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.237.230.2 (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

no it's not more accurate, as in english Fighter it's a aircraft variant in Deuttsch the same is called Jager —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.52.239.90 (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Farnborough Air Show

At which of the Farnborough Air Shows did the He-162 crash? Drutt (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It was during the RAE exhibition of captured German aircraft, at Farnborough, in Oct-Nov 1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.82.170 (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Werknummer 120086: A-1 or A-2?

In the "Aircraft on display" section, we refer to Werknummer 120086 as being an A-2 variant. However, I noticed that the Canada Aviation and Space Museum has listed it as an A-1. [1] Sorry, that's all I know; I don't have any specialist knowledge or other sources that might help resolve this apparent inconsistency. – Wdchk (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Destruction of the Luftwaffe

This section is quite interesting but it's completely unsourced. I note that it was inserted in toto on 7 April 2016. Possibly it's a synthesis of the information contained in related Wikipedia articles, but it really needs references.Ewilen (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)