Luftwaffe color help needed please

[stona]

Well they've gone for a 66 cockpit and 02 cannon and wheel bay(s). I don't know that restoration and there is always a caveat with any restoration, but at least it is perfectly feasible. Hopefully it's based on what they found on the unrestored aircraft Cheers

Steve

Doh! It's W.Nr. 120015. Much of the colour input for the restoration was by a chap called Philippe Couderchon and I believe well known researcher Ken Merrick was also involved. I've always had an issue with the interpretation of the upper wing colour, but they've done a terrific job on an airframe painted (badly) several times after the original German paint work before they got to do it.

Cheers

Steve

 

[treyzx10r]

Thanks for all the input everyone and thanks Steve for the link to that restoration ,I had no idea that the airframe was flown as much as it was after the war, I'de always read it was a handful for even an experienced Pilot . I've always been confused by the many variations in color and time line over the whole of the Luftwaffe colors and considering it was during a war and a lot of detailed info can be lost or blurred with time its no wonder.I'm well on my way to a start with this thanks to all the help,much appreciated Fellas.

 

[stona]

I'de always read it was a handful for even an experienced Pilot .

They cut corners in every aspect of the aircraft's development, the most obvious manifestation of which is the little winglets or 'Lippisch ears' which are a proper bodge job if I ever saw one!

The handling was never really sorted out and in the end the He 162 killed far more of its pilots than the enemy ever did.

Cheers

Steve

 

[treyzx10r]

Steve ,looking at the specs I've researched ,the wing span of the 162 was 23'73/4" and loaded weight of 5.940lbs compared to a 109G with 29'8" span and a loaded weight 5,880lbs the wing loading is rather high on the 162. By comparison length of the 109 was around 28'4" and the 162 comes in around 29'8" so pitch sensitive it was maybe more tame than the 109, considering control throw data that I do'nt know. Wing area of the 162 was 121 sqr ' and the 109 comes in at 176 sqr ' so wing loading was high on the 162 by comparison. I know its prop versus jet here and there are other factors I've not thought to consider,but just looking at these numbers I can see why this was a less than friendly airframe for the low time Pilots that were supposedly going to fly it. I see that you mentioned the Lippisch ears as a bodge job which I'm geussing was a 'quick fix ' for some stability isuues?, is there any info on what was the real bad handling characteristics of this airframe ?

 

[stona]

The winglets were a bodge to mitigate the yaw/roll coupling which resulted in the rather unpleasant flight characteristic known as 'Dutch Roll'. It was deemed to expensive and impractical to apply a proper fix which would have involved altering the wing dihedral. I think the rudder was also altered.

I don't know that any official flight test reports have survived for the He 162 but we do have numerous accounts from the men who flew it. First mentioned is a lack of longitudinal stability in most cases. This sort of instability about the pitch axis combined with a Dutch roll must have been 'interesting' to put it mildly. The yawing or tail wagging aspect of the Dutch roll is a function of some lateral instability too.

It seems to me that it was a deeply flawed design. Some of the problems were mitigated, if not solved, but experienced pilots found the aeroplane a handful. The idea, as in the original concept, that barely qualified pilots would be able to operate the aircraft beggars belief.

Cheers

Steve

 

[treyzx10r]

Thanks Steve appreciate you taking the time to respond . It sounds somewhat similar to the nightmarish things I've read about the AR240 or the early 210 teething problems. Agree all those issues would make a quick end to a novice Pilot, sure would've brought new meaning to the 'Ensign eliminator' title the early Corsairs got huh?