Why The Heinkel He 162 Probably ISN'T the Worst WW2 Fighter

Рет қаралды 39,448

Жыл бұрын

Another installment in our "worst fighters of WW2" series - this time it's the first single-engine jet fighter, the Heinkel He 162.
Again, it's up to you to decide if you think this aircraft deserves to be on the list of the top ten worst fighters in the Second World War.
Watch the rest of the series here: • Video
💗 If you'd like to support my channel please follow this link for more details: calibanrising.com/support/
📰 You can also support me by subscribing to one of these great aviation magazines: calibanrising.com/magazines/
💰 Want to start an online business with KZfaq?
This KZfaq channel is no accident and the success I've had so far was no mere fluke, it's all been planned out and executed in a very meaningful way. However, I can't take credit for knowing how to do all that, I had to learn and I learned from the best!
Listen to my advice for building a successful KZfaq channel: • How Does Phil From Cal...
Follow me on my other channel, / passiveincomephil
3D print your own gaming controls
Get an Enders 3 Pro like me: amzn.to/3dFXts3
Go over to authentikit.org/
🕹️ My gaming equipment:
Joystick: amzn.to/2TP6h40
Rudder Pedals: amzn.to/38c3YAx
Elevator Trim: amzn.to/3oQWNn8
Head Tracking: amzn.to/34Qpvwd
Wishlist: amzn.to/385dXHD
Welcome to my channel where I share my love of history and aviation. I first fell in love with military aviation when reading Biggles books as a boy, then I studied history at university. I like finding interesting stories and sharing them with others.
I also followed this passion into the real world and managed to get a Private Pilot's Licence on 10th May 2014.
I'll share my gameplay from the IL2 Sturmovik Great Battles series as well as the Cliffs of Dover series and DCS series too, to give my stories drama. Feel free to subscribe, like and comment!
System Specs:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i-7 10700K CPU @ 3.80GHz 3.79 GHz
Ram: 32.0 GB
GPU: Geforce RTX 2070 SUPER
VR: Pimax 5k plus
Screen resolution (capture): 1920*1080
64-bit OS - Windows 10
⏱️ Timestamp:
0:00 intro
Images: other than where stated, images used in the video have been found on commons.wikimedia.org/
#aviationhistory#history

Пікірлер: 269

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

🧥 Have you always wanted a distinctive and authentic leather flying jacket? Check out the fantastic range from Legendary USA here: calibanrising.com/flying-jacket/

@TTTT-oc4eb Жыл бұрын

Famous test pilot Eric Brown flew one just after the war and considered it a first-rate aircraft with few vices.

@Rudeljaeger Жыл бұрын

He said "it can fly circles around a Meteor" This video is bad. Yes they had to substitute inferior bonding agent for the wood, but the design itsfelf was brilliant. People dont call the B-29 with their burning engines bad

@trooperdgb9722 Жыл бұрын

He was however an EXTREMELY experienced (not to say talented) pilot... NOT the Hitler Youth glider trained types Germany intended to have fly it.. and EVEN WITH all his experience, he described it as "unforgiving". Giving due regard to british understatement.. one suspects that for pilots without HIS skill that means "unflyable and deadly" lol

@raypurchase801 Жыл бұрын

Not entirely true. Brown loved the machine but declared it twitchy, unstable and dangerous to unskilled pilots. Brown tested a 162 at a postwar British airfield. He landed and told a second highly-experienced test pilot to be wary of its vices. The second test pilot took off and quickly crashed, killing himself and a person on the ground. Yet the 162 was intended to be flown by Hitler Youth glider pilots.

@trooperdgb9722 Жыл бұрын

Im curious...just where did you read that he said it was " a first rate aircraft with few vices"? That is not what Ive seen reported...

@Rendell001 Жыл бұрын

@@trooperdgb9722 Pretty sure it's in 'Wings of the Luftwaffe', a large format collection of some of the german aircraft Brown tested during the war. My copy is still in my parents house - pretty sure I can dig it out next time I'm over there...

@bradywomack9751 Жыл бұрын

What was the He 162 lacking at the time of its design? Proper workforce, time to troubleshoot design, materials for engines and airframes, fuel, properly trained pilots, transportation, quality airfields, control of the air and ground war, and just about everything thing else. It’s amazing they got to fly at all.

@MartinCHorowitz Жыл бұрын

The Natter rocket plane and the Lippisch P.12 and P13 series coal powered aircraft need to be on the list.

@michaelpielorz9283 Жыл бұрын

not the Meteor, a plane so bad it was forbidden to fly over german held territory because it shoul d not meet some mean ME 262 ? the Blackburn Roc should be mentioned too.a fighter that needed no guns to be lethal, because every german fighter would have fallen out of the sky laughing Blackburn Gloster and even Supermarine had some proposals to be better forgotten by propaganda (:-)

@norbert967 8 ай бұрын

I knew a former Luftwaffe flight evaluation pilot for the 162. He liked flying it, but told me that three in his unit died in landing accidents. He had previously ferried damaged FW - 190s from forward operating bases in the East, to repair facilities in the west, and then returning to the bases with repaired or new aircraft.

@robcohen7678 Жыл бұрын

In flight sims, I was always very frustrated with how little ammo the 162 carried. Was almost impossible to shoot down a single B17

@michaelpielorz9283 Жыл бұрын

oh,the simulator hero strikes again (:-)

@wernervanderwalt8541 Жыл бұрын

Calling something that was rush developed the worst fighter of WW2 is a bit of a injustice. I think if given the proper time and resources it should have gotten, we would have seen a groundbreaking new era in jet fighters. The Gloster Meteor went through something like 28 modifications in it's service life, as it was also rushed into production.

@rodneypayne4827 Жыл бұрын

Exactly. The early Meteor had bad engine production quality control problems, resulting in engine fires even when in flight. Problems with stability resulted in oscillation when aiming guns and if an engine lost power it was extremely difficult to control. Of course, like you said all of the problems were eventually fixed.

@flynntaggart8549 Жыл бұрын

i'll use that one on my teacher when she says the paper i waited until the last minute to do is awful.

@michaelpielorz9283 Жыл бұрын

the title "worst fighter in WWII goes to the GLOSTER METEOR could be called a fighter because a flight of Meteors forced a Fiesler Storch akaTerror of the skies to land and finished him off with only minimal losse

@athomicritics 9 ай бұрын

@@michaelpielorz9283 id argue that the Komet was worst

@roykliffen9674 Жыл бұрын

As I understand it, many of the structural problems were due to the bonding agent used. The original "glue" intended was no longer available as the chemical plant producing it was totally destroyed in bombing raids, so they had to use inferior substitutes. Same for the engine it used. It was hampered by shortages in the materials specified in the design, so it too had to be build with inferior materials affecting its performance. I don't think it's basically a bad design, but a design that was hampered by external factors which couldn't be overcome.

@Wisecrackerist Жыл бұрын

I read somewhere that the forced labor that was used to build the planes sabotaged the glue by mixing it with urine which caused the glue to fail unexpectedly. The sabotage was also difficult to detect. I also suspect OSS had something to do with it since Focke-Wulf Ta 154 Moskito had the same problem. Wood glue is not that complicated to produce, it should have not been a problem for germany even that late in the war. The sabotage might have been further up the supply chain and the "urine" story used as a cover.

@roykliffen9674 Жыл бұрын

@@Wisecrackerist Wood glue per se isn't a difficult product. A high-performance bonding agent for wood is quite a different beast.

@michaelpielorz9283 Жыл бұрын

That had been one of the few Bomber Command successes

@MrBeugh 3 ай бұрын

I met an older gentleman, Harold Braun, at the Planes of Fame Museum and he was admiring the HE-162 they had on display. We were introduced to him and he began telling us that this was the 65th anniversary of him being shot down in one of these. He was delivering his plane to a Luftwaffe squadron that was flying ME-109s and BF-109s. He was jumped by several Mustangs as he and his fellow taxi pilots were taking off from a base about to be bombed! He said the plane was pretty fast and flew very well - so long as it stayed together! He explained that they were mostly built using slave labor and were often intentionally sabotaged during construction.

@douglasfur3808 Жыл бұрын

This really comes down to how you define worst. The 162 at least flew. Shouldn't the worst go to the plane that sucks up money and never gets off the ground or at least never gets into the air; c.f. the Ascender? The B&V 211 would be more failed than the 162 It is amusing that the success of the Mosquito and the failure of the 162 can be put down to the quality of the glue available. (although its ghost can be seen in the Argentinian Pulqui 2 and the MIG 17.)

@adrianhendy Жыл бұрын

We did bomb the factory making Tego glue....

@kkteutsch6416 4 ай бұрын

American XP 75 isn't the worst - or Fayrey Battle fighter ? They're just garbage....

@bigmatthews666 Жыл бұрын

I like your channel alot. I found it earlier in the week and i think you’re going to do very well. 😃

@oxcart4172 Жыл бұрын

Test pilot Eric Brown said it would've run rings around the Meteor!

@chriscarbaugh3936 Жыл бұрын

That’s odd I need to reread my books on Brown as I don’t recall that quote. In fact the plane was a joke. With the right materials and pilots … maybe. So, maybe …just maybe it was not the worst plane of the war. My vote for worst fighter still goes to the C. 714; junk!

@oxcart4172 Жыл бұрын

@@chriscarbaugh3936 I think I saw it in his book 'Wings on my Sleeve' well, he definitely said it!

@chriscarbaugh3936 Жыл бұрын

@@oxcart4172 I have that book; I’ll dig it up! It’s a classic 👍

@jamesricker3997 Жыл бұрын

If you took an He-162 into a high G turn you were playing with your life

@oxcart4172 Жыл бұрын

@@jamesricker3997 I don't feel qualified to argue with Eric Brown!

@tomt373 Жыл бұрын

The track record as an actual failure of the Me-163 beats this one, inasmuch as it was actually pressed into service and then at the beginning of May 1945, Me 163 operations were stopped, the JG 400 disbanded, and many of its pilots sent to fly Me 262's.

@patrickstewart3446 Жыл бұрын

While some aircraft may break up while flying (some great aircraft included) there’s one that could explode just sitting on the tarmac after being refueled. I’m convinced the 163 would explode if you didn’t salute properly. 😁

@stevetheduck1425 Жыл бұрын

He-162: 'Salamander' was the production project planned to build the He-162. Rather like the 'Tigerprogramm' was conceived to build a new generation of tanks, and resulted in the German tanks Panther, Lowe (Lion), Tiger and Bengal Tiger or 'Konigstiger' in German. Most of these tanks only gained a themed name later, after building, while in service. Several projects to build underground factories had codenames such as Languste, etc. (Langoustine in English, a French loan-word) which were mostly water-creatures, continuing the theme.

@Daisysdomain Жыл бұрын

Another great video and another aircraft that I quite like. I think that, if it hadn't been rushed in production and the Germans could of sorted out some of the problems this would definitely be something to work with the ME 262. The fact that one brought down a Tempest speaks for itself. Two ideas for you. Bolton Paul defiant and the Blackburn Skua.

@jamesricker3997 Жыл бұрын

The biggest problem was the wooden wing. If it had managed to enter full scale service it would have killed more German Pilots then Allied

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the suggestions Michael!

@davidelliott5843 Жыл бұрын

Whittle is noted for using a centrifugal compressor because it gave the least complex solution. Von Ohain went for multi axial flow turbines to avoid patent claims from Whittle.

@LeopardIL2 Жыл бұрын

But they bacame friends after the war.

@canigetanoorah Жыл бұрын

has anyone ever noticed that the modern US A10 aircraft visually looks very similar to the HE162, though with the engine repositioned. Perhaps with more development time as Winkle Brown stated this could have become a formidable aircraft

@dirt_ripper8734 Жыл бұрын

Looks like the grandfather of the warthog.

@rocksparadox Жыл бұрын

Far fetched, high wing vs low wing, different nose, the only thing the He-162 and the A-10 have in common is the ''engine placement'' .

@eze417 Жыл бұрын

Yes, I noticed that. The shape of the HE 162 is more...how shall we say.... aesthetically pleasing than the A-10, but the basic arrangement is the same.

@eze417 Жыл бұрын

@@rocksparadox And the twinned vertical stabilizers.

@Daronor01 Жыл бұрын

@@rocksparadox and sloped wingtips

@neiloflongbeck5705 Жыл бұрын

Whittle's patent covered both centrifugal and axial flow compressors. Whittle, due to material restrictions went for centrifugal compressors. Starting later Ohain went for the axial flow compressor as did Metro-Vickers in the UK. Both the Germans and the British developed the turbo-fan engines from their axial flow engines, but only the British got it working properly as the Germans didn't have the resources at that stage of the war.

@peepo_hate_ya Жыл бұрын

The first turbojet engine was the daimler benz DB 670. Dunno if it was ever used but it worked as far as I know

@neiloflongbeck5705 Жыл бұрын

@@peepo_hate_ya the DB670 was a ducted fan with a compression that fed an afterburner. The fan and compressor was driven by a DB604. So, not a true turbo-jet. After this was abandoned due to a low power to weight ratio IIRC the developer went on to the DB007 which had contra-rotating spools (just like many engines today), a fan (making it the first turbo-fan) and an afterburner. It was complex and not as efficient as some of the other jet engines being g developed by the Germans and so in May 1944 this too was abandoned although they did do some bench testing.

@mandernachluca3774 Жыл бұрын

What do you mean by "properly working"? The german axial design was also properly working, it had a short lifespan but the ingeniouity that went in these engines to make them last as long as possible with the lowest grade materials i simply amazing and the solutions the gemans came up with are still used today.

@neiloflongbeck5705 Жыл бұрын

@@mandernachluca3774 byproperly working I mean that they never competed the bench testing of their turbo-fan engine. Whilst the axial flow jet core worked as designed they couldn't get the fan and the core to work correctly together.

@mandernachluca3774 Жыл бұрын

@@neiloflongbeck5705 No, the germans had a fully functional turbofan (bypass) engine, the DB007. They fully developed and tested it. they stopped working on it, because, as expected, the efficiency benefit was overshadowed by the complexity and low performance. They were also experimenting with turboprops and gasturbines as a means of propulsion in tanks.They supposedly built one Jagdtiger with a 1000 hp shaft turbine but these are more rumors than anything else, because most sources are either from russia or not identifieable.

@danzervos7606 Жыл бұрын

The NA F-107 had a similar problem with jet intake location. For the 107, the pilot was ejected through the canopy. The Air Force decided to go with the F-105 instead.

@thepatrioticpole2269 Жыл бұрын

A cover of paratroopers and their developments: equipment, aircraft etc. Might be cool

@fredsalfa Жыл бұрын

Like Erik Brown said if it was given more time for development in large numbers it would have been deadly. Unfortunately Germany had run out of time and as Galland stated they should have focused on the 262 only

@angrydoggy9170 Жыл бұрын

I would go for “fortunately”, but I get your train of thought.

@raypurchase801 Жыл бұрын

@@angrydoggy9170 I agree about the use of that word.

@fleisbester612 4 ай бұрын

Fortunatly*, unless you're a Nazi

@crazyforblues1967 9 ай бұрын

Love the sim footage! Best WW2 sim/game ever at least IMO!

@HetzerTheTutel Жыл бұрын

Wow, this video is awesome!

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

I'm glad you like it

@tsegulin 3 ай бұрын

In order to get the He-162 into service quickly, the normal development programs were carried out as it was being produced, not before production as was the usual practice. As shortcomings were discovered, the aircraft in service were supposed to be retrofitted. This was due to desperation in the last months of the war and a major reason for so many accidents. The 'Volksjager' notion of rushing Hitler Youth boys through a short training period in He-162-like gliders then putting them into combat was frankly ridiculous. Most would have been killed in take off and landing accidents. Had the aircraft had the time it needed for adequate development and had the issues with the wood glue been satisfactorily resolved, the He-162 offered some real advantages. For one thing it used only one gas turbine, while the Me-262 required two, which increased its cost and complicated its support logistics. It did not draw engines away from Me-262 production - the Me-262 used Jumo-004 engines while the He-162 used BMW-003 gas turbines. It was cheaper and faster to produce than a contemporary cutting edge piston engine fighter like the FW-190D. Its jet engine used a kerosene style fuel which could be directly made from coal, which Germany had in abundance, while the B4 and C2 fuels needed for piston engines required crude imported from Romania which was increasingly denied due to Allied bombing. Finally it was extremely maneuverable and very small, making it a potentially effective short range defensive fighter and a small, hard to hit target. All in all, had it been developed a year or so earlier, it might have been a formidable defensive fighter. By the time it entered service, there were less experienced fighter pilots available to fly it, production quality control was very poor and the outcome of the war was a foregone conclusion. I don't think it should be on the list of worst aircraft, at least not without the above qualifications.

@julianmhall Жыл бұрын

I'd vote for the Bachem 349.. the Natter. Eric 'Winkle' Brown (who you mention in the video), who flew in over 400 types in his career, refused to fly it, and that was the /only/ one he ever refused. When a pilot of his experience declares an aircraft 'too dangerous' (his words) you'd have to take his word for it. Mind you the Messerschmitt Me163 also had a bad habit of melting pilots IIRC, if the fuel tank of corrosive fuel ruptured on landing, so that was equally likely to kill the pilot as the He162.

@alganhar1 Жыл бұрын

Worryingly, Eric 'Winkle' Brown actually FLEW a 163, yet refused to get into the B 349.... which says something of the latter!!

@Sacto1654 Жыл бұрын

Interestingly, RAF pilots who actually test flew captured examples of the He 162A said it was actually a very good plane to fly, if you had some pilot training to familiarize yourself with the plane. The Luftwaffe's _Volksjäger_ plan would have been a disaster because the plan was to only train pilots for ten hours flying time before actually operating the plane in combat, which would have been nearly suicidal for the pilots involved.

@DataWaveTaGo Жыл бұрын

Here is the impression of the He 162 flown by Captain Eric Brown from "Wings of the Luftwaffe" ...the aircraft had excellent directional snaking characteristics making it a good gun platform. From this aspect it was the best jet fighter of it's time, and I was certainly in a position to judge, having flown every jet aircraft then in existence. A check on the rate of roll at 400 mph revealed the highest that I had ever experienced outside of the realm of hydraulically-powered ailerons, and the stick force demanded to produce these exhilarating gyrations was delightfully light. Leveling off at 12,000 feet I settled down to another spell of the pleasures of the phenomenal roll rate of this delightful little aeroplane ... I had never met better flying controls ... Even if somewhat underpowered it had a good performance - it could certainly have run rings around the contemporary Meteor. I was to fly the little aeroplane quite frequently

@robinj.9329 4 ай бұрын

Okay! Fine video! And you covered most of what I already had written too. Keep up the GOOD WORK my Friend! (P.S. I'm a trained "Aviator" myself. But that was likely before you were born! First lesson with a CFI in the 1960's. First "Solo" at age 18 in 1971, etc. )

@CalibanRising 4 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching Robin!

@andywells397 Жыл бұрын

It must have looked very futuristic to the allied pilots, its design reminds me of a single engined A10.

@lqr824 Жыл бұрын

2:25 the 162 was meant to shoot bombers, and would have been far too fast for Allied fighters, so watching the six wasn't important.

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

A fair point. But I'd be surprised if they would have been totally invulnerable to fighters. T/O and landing would have been an ideal time to bounce them.

@lqr824 Жыл бұрын

@@CalibanRising First, of course you're right. Some WOULD fall prey to fighters. But I think that number would be about the same as actually fell to 262's, but since Germany would have twice the Heinkels, the percent lost would be far lower. I can't find figures but say 10% of 262's were destroyed thusly. That'd have been 5% of the Heinkels that otherwise could have been made. Second, the 262 had to throttle down so much due to being so over-powered. The 16 would have been able to keep its jet at higher RPMs and not been quite so weak on landing phase. I don't know if this matters but it's something to consider. Third, with twice the 163s flying, there'd be more giving top cover while others landed. A Tempest could sneak up on a pair of 262's, say, but would have trouble sneaking up on a pair of Heinkels with another pair of 163's in the air nearby. Thanks for hearing me out and best of luck with your channel!

@oceanhome2023 Жыл бұрын

The failure part was the Glue that held the wings together , as the ingredients ran out (no super glue) LOL !!

@csh5414 2 ай бұрын

Nope. The Factory that produced it was destroyed..along with the knowledge and formulas.

@Skreezilla Жыл бұрын

As an Allie i am all for the Salamander! :p Honestly, as a bomber interceptor it had merit and at least it managed to get an enemy strike. The plane was slapped together way too fast, as a MK1 it wasn't the worst thing. Another plane for the think tank - Boomerang! Yes the C&C Boomerang is awesome, We love it, it is not bad but it never took down a single enemy plane and to me that is a huge issue for a Fighter! Considering the Wirraway managed to splash a couple the more heavily armed Boomerang really underperformed in the Fighter role.

@trooperdgb9722 Жыл бұрын

Maybe so... but... it was a useful ground attack aircraft..and..unlike the 162..did NOT kill more of its pilots than the enemy did!

@Skreezilla Жыл бұрын

@@trooperdgb9722 oh yeah it was handy as a ground attacker, but as a plane designed to take on the enemy planes it failed pretty hard. :( Still a fantastic plane though! and always love seeing one fly! :D it is also such a great plane to tell the story of.. mad max fury skies

@marktuffield6519 Жыл бұрын

For a fighter plane to shoot down other fighter planes it helps if there are opposing fighter planes in its area of operations.

@Skreezilla Жыл бұрын

@@marktuffield6519 There were a fair few up Darwin way. ;)

@marktuffield6519 Жыл бұрын

@@Skreezilla Hahaha, you do realise that using facts in a discussion is particularly bad form😁. I dug out my copy of Wirraway, Boomerang and CA-15 in Australian Service by Stuart Wilson to check when the "Boomer" entered service and see that 84 Sqn received 10 at Horn Island on the 4th April 1943. According to Wiki there were around 25 raids on Australia between then and November '43 over a very large geographical area, 84 Sqn did have a couple of cracks at the enemy but with no real luck. I guess the fact that only 250 were built between 1942 and early '45 is a factor in their deployment, allied to a lack of altitude performance and speed. But I still maintain that you can only fight where your high command sends you and in that regard the RAAF was not helped by their American friends 😉.

@polish22doves Жыл бұрын

Galland was right, ultimately the wooden construction could not have lasted enough hours to return the investment. Worst is hard to define, He 162 is better then the Ba 349 though. Have you any plans to do a video on the BV 142? Subscribed to your channel, I have always been plane crazy.

@Unmasking_Viandalisme Жыл бұрын

Not a fighter but my choice of aircraft in which NOT to start WW2, would have been the Fairey Battle. The only 'plane in which I've ever flown was Duxford's de Havilland Dragon Rapide biplane which, recently, had a slight prang upon landing.

@wbertie2604 Жыл бұрын

Ah, the De Havilland Dragon Rapide, the most beautiful plane ever made, IMHO

@Unmasking_Viandalisme Жыл бұрын

@@wbertie2604 Beautifully shaped wings.. similar to those incorporated into early Spitfires.

@johnp8131 Жыл бұрын

Don't know if you saw the cause, the local press statement said it was just a puncture on one of the tyres.

@Unmasking_Viandalisme Жыл бұрын

@@johnp8131 Low tyre pressure.. I did read that.. so likely a puncture. Taking off & landing on grass was memorable, bumpy fun!🤣

@mrjockt Жыл бұрын

The Fairey Battle was a fairly advanced design for its time, unfortunately the rate of advancement in aircraft technology in the late thirties meant that by the time W.W.II began the Battle was obsolete, many aircraft that were cutting edge when they entered service in the mid thirties suffered the same fate.

@lqr824 Жыл бұрын

You seem to think the Bv211 would not have the faults of poor structural integrity or bad pilots or poor acceleration at low speed endangering pilots, but why would it not have had the same faults? Of course switching fighter designs late-war was a problem, but the real issue was that the Me-262 used too many resources. They should have started with a small 162-class fighter, which would still have been too fast to catch.

@pauldonnelly7949 Жыл бұрын

Interesting as Eric "Winkle" Brown considered it a well harmonised and stable aircraft to fly. Its only issue (true, a large one) was its marginal quality of build. The aircraft Brown flew killled a test pilot soon after, wing disintegrated...

@tristacker Жыл бұрын

Very small and light hence fast. Seen one at the RAF museum at Hendon. By the way I think the rank of the tempest pilot was ' flying officer ' as flight officer is not a rank in the RAF.

@38dragoon38 Жыл бұрын

I heard somewhere that this aircraft was never named "Salamander" and that this was the name of the operation to produce it. It was actually referred to as der Spatz (Sparrow). Is this correct?

@marktuffield6519 Жыл бұрын

Salamander was a cover name for the production of the wings and other parts by wood processing companies. Spatz was the aircraft name used by Heinkel. Volksjäger was the name given to the design competition by the RLM.

@jamesrogers5783 Жыл бұрын

the words " structural failure" and "worst aircraft" sort of go together . i have a theory about this AC and its either glowing or hated rebuttals by former test pilots. you see the structural failure part and instability go hand in hand. while the glue was holding it wasn't too bad , and the glue weakened from engine heat , vibration, and poor chemical make up-- its center section , wings and tail distorted . as the structure fatigued it became more and more unstable --till the parts left the AC.

@fredferd965 Жыл бұрын

For reference, please look up the KZfaq video titled "He 162 Jet Fighter Test Pilot," a Peninsula production. Harald Bauer gives a great lecture. He flew the plane as a young test pilot (not a combatant) for Germany, during WWII.

@jeffreybaker4399 Жыл бұрын

Fred, agree the Bauer lecture is very interesting. Particularly his assertion that 60 of the 65 test/ferrying pilots he served with at one base were killed in takeoff or landing accidents. Seems fair to say it was not a forgiving aircraft for inexperienced pilots.

@fredferd965 Жыл бұрын

@@jeffreybaker4399 Yes, I agree, but if I remember correctly, that runway had winter snow and was narrow, and in itself dangerous. That would have added to the problem. That aircraft was no airplane for novices!

@jeffreybaker4399 Жыл бұрын

@@fredferd965 Agreed. He references snow or ice and I took that as being on the runway proper, a real problem for anyone.

@fredferd965 Жыл бұрын

@@jeffreybaker4399 Your video is excellent! I always thought attempting to bail out of that thing would be a kind of Russian Roulette. One hopes the bang seat works well....

@ThatsMrPencilneck2U Жыл бұрын

I've heard very good things about the performance of this aircraft. It's main problem was that there were a dozen P-51s flying over Germany for every fighter the Germans could get in the air.

@polish22doves Жыл бұрын

And the P51s learned where the fighters were based. Germany didn't develop good glue, their Ta 152 also suffered from this.

@ThatsMrPencilneck2U Жыл бұрын

@@polish22doves As I understand, the Ta-152 was cancelled, because of the lack of descent glue. Whenever I hear about how ineffective the American strategic bombing campaign was, I remember how the bombing of this one glue factory set back German aviation, and I'm sure it wasn't the only critical facility closed permanently, courtesy of the 8th Air Force.

@exharkhun5605 Жыл бұрын

The only fair way to judge a weapon is to ask if it meets the requested specifications and if it can perform the concept of operations that's expected of it. As the entire concept of operations revolved around being easy to fly and fight, it should be judged a complete failure. That said, "fair" judgment has no real place in war. If you judge according to the above then the Skua, Roc and Defiant would have been the stellar airplanes of the war. 🙂 Economically the 162 seems a sound idea for the state Germany was in. Galland reasoned from a view where pilots and fighters are long time investments and are good for dozens of missions. The reality was that the effort of training and building to that standard would never be recouped in the handful of missions they were expected to survive. And the Allies weren't strangers to the dreadful algebra of necessity. It was said of the Liberty ships that they were expected to make only 2 or 3 Atlantic crossings and even a single crossing would recoup it's price. Oh... And I really like your videos.

@NoName-ds5uq Жыл бұрын

It’s no surprise that the first aircraft ejection seats were not particularly great at saving pilots’ lives, no matter who developed them first. I wouldn’t want to be sitting in a cockpit below and forward of a jet intake anytime! Also, trying to create some wonderful new low-cost, low-resource, war-winning jet aircraft at such a late stage was obviously delusional. Perhaps if the Me262 had had more support from the bloke with the funny moustache as an interceptor instead of insisting on it mainly being focused on ground attack things may have been different. Even that would have just delayed the inevitable though, given the huge resources flowing in partly from elsewhere in the British Empire, but more particularly from the USA. Eric Brown is an absolute hero and legend! Has anyone ever test flown more types than him?

@julianmhall Жыл бұрын

Im curious. You mentioned the ejection seat.. how did that work? I'm assuming that when a pilot baled out the engine had stopped anyway so he couldn't get sucked in?

@LeopardIL2 Жыл бұрын

There was no ejection seat. The plane was a desperate measure. Pilots were instructed to try a belly land whenever possible...

@julianmhall Жыл бұрын

@@LeopardIL2 The video says there /was/ an ejection seat.

@marktuffield6519 Жыл бұрын

@@Sonshine70s is correct.

@davidbeattie4294 Жыл бұрын

There are few fighters flown in WWII by any combatant that did not go thru teething problems and sometimes major changes in order to overcome initial flaws or performance issues. The He162 was designed and built in an incredibly short time period and rushed into service. It had lots of problems and no time to correct them. Was it the worst fighter? Messerschmitt produced a couple of real dogs that had no business going into production. The 162 was a ground breaker and never achieved volume production status. It barely qualifies as a service fighter at all.

@briandaly1843 Жыл бұрын

This is one of those projects rushed and underdeveloped, it was introduced far too late in the war to make any difference and as such could have been a great little aircraft. It made best use of the materials that were available it just lacked things like better quality glue. The 262 on the other hand a much sexier plane was bombed and strafed in fields as they waited for non-existent engines that they needed two of while the 162 only required one.

@michaelpielorz9283 Жыл бұрын

ME had Jumo`s 162 BMW 003`s germany had a lot of them ,but no fuel.

@jeremycaufield8605 Жыл бұрын

Interesting, I always thought the war ended before this aircraft saw service.

@LeopardIL2 Жыл бұрын

Became operational in April, shortly before the war s end.

@alexyoon-sungcucina7895 Жыл бұрын

I don't think any experimentalish fighter should be considered for "Worst Ever". Nor any fighter made in a prior era and held onto for too long. Nor any fighter that turned out well when tuned or having a different engine. That being said, the HE-162 was bad.

@karlbark Жыл бұрын

I thought the video would at least give a possible alternative... (Considering the name of the video). -Not that many alternatives *at all* of course, so one possibility would have been to include rocket powered planes (?)

@r.ladaria135 Жыл бұрын

The main utility of the luft '46 projects was to spare the lives of the engineers working on them by keeping them away from the front . I read it somewhere.

@Cuccos19 Жыл бұрын

At least this crazy design ever get into the air unlike many others which didn't.

@OtteyTheOtter Жыл бұрын

The he-162 kinda looks like the v-1 flying bomb but then bigger whit its wings higher

@StalinLovsMsmZioglowfagz Жыл бұрын

Great video.

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it

@StalinLovsMsmZioglowfagz Жыл бұрын

@@CalibanRising thanks, absolutely did.

@fredweller1086 Жыл бұрын

This would be used as an interceptor. The engine placement blocking visibility is irrelevant as "dogfighting" would be avoided. 50 MPH faster than Allied aircraft, it could simply accelerate away after shooting down bombers. This was not a bad aircraft, but a poorly constructed one.

@vger9084 Жыл бұрын

As a point defense fighter I think it's excellent. However as an escort, recon (recce), or general purpose fighter, not so much.

@eze417 Жыл бұрын

I wouldn't call it the worst ever, but it did have a few problems.

@paulfrantizek102 Жыл бұрын

According the Eric Brown, its flying characteristics were quite nice. It was undone by subpar materials, both in the engine and glue for the wooden structure.

@jamesricker3997 Жыл бұрын

Its wings disintegrated in flight The problems stemmed from using wooden construction on a jet aircraft The He-162 would have earned a really bad reputation if it had served for more than a month

@cartersmith8560 Жыл бұрын

Also a Typhoon fell to the salamander.....its pilot survived and was kept as a POW for less than a week before VE dayt

@parrotraiser6541 Жыл бұрын

A specimen undergoing restoration by its museum owner was found to have a sharp piece of gravel positioned under the fuel tank, where it would have rubbed a hole in the tank aster a short time. It is unwise to use weapons produced by people who have good reason to hate you.

@richardscales9560 Жыл бұрын

Not sure that the six o'clock check was considered so important for a fast jet at the time that was I think primarily intended as a bomber buster not a dog fighter. Inexperienced pilots would have been easy meat in any dogfight anyway.

@modeljetjuggernaut4864 9 ай бұрын

Well I've flown the RC version of this plane 😁 and its super nimble and rolls like a pencil but also noticed the aeroyldynamic flaws real pilots experienced from the books i read. It can go into an uncontrollable spin doing certain maneuvers and mine did. My rudders were fixed to the tail so i couldnt use them but in the real aircraft, over using the rudder would throw the jet into an uncontrollable flat spin.

@jdm1152 Жыл бұрын

I keep on seeing the Vision jet.

@lunarmodule6419 Жыл бұрын

Interesting thx

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

Any time

@lunarmodule6419 Жыл бұрын

@@CalibanRising Great stuff

@ElsinoreRacer Жыл бұрын

The wood glue they needed, Tego-Film, was in short supply because the plant was bombed by...... wait for it.... Mosquitos.

@dancahill8555 Жыл бұрын

Eric Brown had a high opinion of it.

@josephstabile9154 Жыл бұрын

Theoretically, an excellent point defenceman fighter, let down by end of war chaotic quality control, rushed production, disintegrating logistics, and eager yet woefully undertrained pilots of both low flight time and nil combat experience, save for a sprinkling of experienced squadron leaders.

@michaelchristensen5421 Жыл бұрын

The Boulton Paul Defiant is the top of my list. Had they put in forward firing guns, this would have increased its abilities. Especially once the Germans figured out frontal attacks and bottom attacks was easy to destroy the plane.

@Skreezilla Жыл бұрын

it really was not that bad as a bomber interceptor in the early years, There are much much worse Fighters with turrets out there.

@michaelchristensen5421 Жыл бұрын

@@Skreezilla When they first started they were good, until fighter escorts showed up. Then once the Germans figured out their weakness, it was game over. No idea why the engineers thought it was smart to not include wing mounted machine guns.

@norwegiangadgetman Жыл бұрын

Didn't it have some success as a nightfighter?

@Skreezilla Жыл бұрын

@@norwegiangadgetman yup! poor thing always gets such a bad rep :(

@michaelchristensen5421 Жыл бұрын

@@norwegiangadgetman It has some success as a night fighter. More squadrons of the might fighter variant were fielded than day squadrons. It was replaced in 1942 with other better aircraft. After this it was a target tug.

@OldMusicFan83 Жыл бұрын

I don’t know worst is the right word. Seems pretty cutting edge. Just wasn’t developed in time

@BlondieSuperdog Жыл бұрын

Im not sure you are rational - the 262 and 162 definitely had the potential to end US day bombing. Both were to be fitted with the MK103 30mm a single hit on a bomber could take it out, tear a wing off. 1000 were in production and 120 made it to service Capt Brown found it to be a superior plane. The reason that these jets did not shut down allied bombing is Hitler to insisted the 262 be made into a blitz bomber - and prohibited use as a fighter except a few experimental jets Galland was able to beg for. The kill ratio was super high - See Me262 combat diary.

@robinj.9329 4 ай бұрын

Before viewing the video; A very important fact about this "Jet" is the use of wood for wings and other control surfaces. And IT COULD HAVE WORKED TOO! But for the fact that the Allies had bombed out the only factories in Germany that could make the kind of VERY SPECIAL glue that was needed and was specifically called for by both the designer and engineers! So, those actually trying to "rush this peoples fighter" into production had to resort to "other glues" that simply DID NOT WORK. One concoction that was whipped up and tried actually ate up the wood fibers! Making everything TOO WEAK to hold together at 500+ mph! Additionally, trying to rely on "Forced Labor"! Those prisoners did everything they could to Sabotage the Germans war effort. Thus this land mark design was set up to fail from the beginning. IF the Germans could have started the project just a few months (say 6-12 ?) earlier? God only knows what might have been.

@superiorsloth4677 Жыл бұрын

I have waited so long to see videos on this vehicle that hasn’t been based

@mpetersen6 Жыл бұрын

There are any number of worse fighters. Most of those reached production. One thing I find ironic is a nation known for its chemical industry couldn't produce a decent wood glue for aircraft use. This and the FW "Mosquito" both suffered from glue related structural failures. The absolute worst fighter of WWII was the Skua

@alganhar1 Жыл бұрын

The Mosquito only suffered those issues in the tropics however, and once the issue was discovered it was rectified immediately. Once the glue issue was sorted out the Mosquito suffered no major issues when in the tropics.

@mpetersen6 Жыл бұрын

@@alganhar1 I'm referring to the German answer built by FW

@Jeremyparker Жыл бұрын

How does this video address the statement "Why The Heinkel He 162 Probably ISN'T the Worst WW2 Jet Fighter" and what are the alternatives for this title?

@wyvernbravo Жыл бұрын

If I could get one that wasn't a massive fire Hazzard I would

@Allan_aka_RocKITEman Жыл бұрын

@CalibanRising >>> 👍👍

@tplyons5459 Жыл бұрын

Four units had them not 2. Most people don't know about JG-84 and JG-85 though there is a book out on them.

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the info!

@tplyons5459 Жыл бұрын

@@CalibanRising Except for the book which I was stupid not to buy there is sooo little info on the 2 units. Folklore etc says that the pilots picked up their planes as a squadron(s) and flew them to the area around Denmark. It is said that they accidently ran into an American formation of bombers and mauled them before having to break off due to limited fuel. It could be urban legion but considering the craziness of 1945 it could be true. Any one else heard anything?

@CaptainVasiliArkhipov Жыл бұрын

I'm thinking the better aircraft more often than not brought home their crew with much battle damage, important victories don't always appear as big. Worst aircraft I'd say don't bring anyone home with minor to medium damages. The unarmored pacific zero had many desirable qualities other aircraft of the time couldn't match, making them appear as great fighters, but put one bullet anywhere on the wing gas tanks and boom, these paper tigers cost Japan many experienced fighter pilots,(no armor, self sealing fuel tanks, parashoot) a skill set Japan was not in a position to replace quickly. Clair Chenault and his P-40 flying tigers were not paper tigers, and their leadership tactics proved what fighters are capable of, these warhawks were a menace to His Majesty.

@Justin-rv7oy Жыл бұрын

Let's cover some late war Japanese aircraft!!

@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188 Жыл бұрын

It had Winglets like a modern plane and the glue used wasn't of any modern quality, by that time in Germany. It was of course much too little and too late, but E. Brown liked it, even being English! But it wasn't a bad plane in any way. And it was planned and produced during only 5 month.

@finncarlbomholtsrensen1188 Жыл бұрын

They have a sample hanging in London, in the War Museum, to be looked at very close from the balcony. At least when I visited it some years ago.

@mbryson2899 Жыл бұрын

But nut but...the HE-162 was an AMAZING aircraft! On paper... What kind of pilot complains just because his aircraft self-disintegrated, they could have learned a lot from WWI aircrews. I read or heard somewhere that slave workers simetimed urinated into the glue to hasten its failure. The Nazi regime must have withheld a lot of information from servicemembers given the failure rates of their equipment from sabotage, shoddy workmanship, and questionable engineering. Kind of reminds me of the manned V-1 project.

@samhutchison9582 Жыл бұрын

I don't think it should be on the list of worst aircraft. Other worst aircraft were just non functional or so outclassed that they were always overmatched. It seems like this aircraft suffered more from a lack of proper usage and access to proper construction materials than just plain bad or outdated design.

@patsmith8523 Жыл бұрын

It would also be important to mention that this craft (apparently) had the V1 as its origin.

@trooperdgb9722 Жыл бұрын

Not true... the engine was a conventional jet..not the V1 Pulse Jet that it superficially resembled.

@patsmith8523 Жыл бұрын

@@trooperdgb9722 True, but the airframe was based on the V1.

@waynebrinker8095 Жыл бұрын

@@patsmith8523 No, that is also untrue. They were designed by different men working for unconnected companies. The V1 had a stressed steel fuselage while the He-162 was made of wood and they were constructed very differently. A piloted V1 was famously flown by Hanna Reitsch, but it bore no resemblance to a Volksjager. Your statement is easily disprovable, so stop making a fool of yourself. (apparently)

@patsmith8523 Жыл бұрын

@@waynebrinker8095 Why don't you sjow your proof. Stop being an a$$ in your responses! My statements came from other sources. Yes, I am aware it was made of wood! Galland and other Luftwaffe officers were against both the V1 and V2 because of the drain on needed resources. My comments came from sources that said that the V1 was the inspiration. Did the piloted V1 have weapons and ammo?

@marktuffield6519 Жыл бұрын

The V1 was the designation of the first He 162 to fly, in this case the V stood for Versuchmuster or prototype. The aircraft having a Werk Nummern of 200001 and a radio call sign, Stammkennzechen VI+IA.

@raven_1133 Жыл бұрын

I feel like when we talk about the worst fighters, especially German, we have to look at the stage of the war. The He 162 was the only fighter out of the emergency fighter program to see production and combat, if built in lets say, 1941, the materials and testing would be more surplus allowing it to be built better.

@WALTERBROADDUS Жыл бұрын

It was a good idea on paper. Badly executed. Proper development time and testing you could have made a good plane short-term.

@loodwich Жыл бұрын

an exceptional plane made with low-quality materials and an unreliable engine, but giving it to young pilots that learn to fly in sailplanes is not the best option. For me, the question is why the Germans didn't develop more the Henschel Hs 132. But the Heinkel He 162 was one of the best winning prices for all the allies in the last year of the second world war.

@PORRRIDGE_GUN Жыл бұрын

6.40 Why is Capt Eric 'Winkle' Brown RN depicted wearing RAF uniform?

@CalibanRising Жыл бұрын

I believe he started off in the RAF and transferred over to the RN during the phoney war period.

@randymarine Жыл бұрын

Absolutely not the worst or one of the worst...I think it was quite impressive considering the issues the German's had at this stage of the war...Had they had another 3 months to work out some of the design flaws that are inevitable with any aircraft, never mind the complexity and unknowns of a breakthrough technology, the war would have been extended by months, maybe long enough to get some of their other weapons on line....like the Atomic Bomb...I think it was fool hearty to not suspend the ME-262 development and full throttle development of the 162. Just in terms of resources used, it would have gone much further. Semper Fi

@darrenvanderwilt1258 Жыл бұрын

It seems to be a typical theme for the Germans in WWII to rush through development and testing for many of their weapons programs. This was certainly a drain on their dwindling resources.

@buckwheatINtheCity 4 ай бұрын

The center of gravity was just too high to make this bird pilot friendly. The engine needed to be mounted ventrally. Its wings were too stubby for the weight of the engine plus fuel. German engineers did not always use common sense in their designs.

@KapiteinKrentebol Жыл бұрын

With two engines it looks like an A-10.

@reginaldmcnab3265 Жыл бұрын

The archive new development! The developers has to be bold and the Germans were the most advance but they never had enough supplies and at the same time they were fighting many

@jackd1582 Жыл бұрын

Ummm less time at high alt? That doesn't stack up

@johnburns4017 Жыл бұрын

Ohain used Whittles turbojet patents. He states Whittle invented the turbojet. The 1939 plane? The engine was vastly under developed. The British would not put such an engine into a plane. They had minimum engine performance requirements such as enough thrust, etc, before doing such an _expensive_ dodgy thing, as designing and building an airframe for a poor engine.

@stupitdog9686 Жыл бұрын

That "Fact" that it killed more German pilots trying to fly it, then it shot down Allied pilots, should have got the desiginer an Allied war medal at least!

@patricklemire9278 Жыл бұрын

A tricky plane and green pilots is a deadly combo. That’s the real reason the Germans were going to lose no matter what, they were out of well trained pilots and tankers.

@mattpeckham667 Жыл бұрын

The HE-162 was conceptually flawed right from the beginning. While the idea for a low-cost jet fighter made using non-strategic materials on hand was a good one, it was insane to think that barely-trained new pilots would be able to handle this fighter. Sure, mounting the engine on the top of the fuselage made it easier to produce, but it also completely unbalanced it and made it a handful for even a seasoned pilot to fly. The bonkers "volksjager" concept---that an army of Hitler youth with a few hours of training would take back air supremacy with thousands of cheaply made wooden jet fighters---was typical of the Nazi's believing their own propaganda by the end of the war. So in answer, yes this definitely belongs on any list of the worst fighters of the war.

@WildBillCox13 Жыл бұрын

Worst fighter aircraft of WW2? Great gambit. A wide field of underwhelming performers among which to choose. 1) Does the Avia S199 count? It's a bit late to the party. 2) The BI-1 used red fuming Nitric Acid for an oxidizer. What could possibly go wrong? 3) That He111 with the balloon cutters . . . recipe for disaster. 4) Anything powered by the Pratt & Whitney X-1800 H-block sleeve valve engine was doomed from the start. 5) Anything powered by the Rolls Royce Peregrine* was doomed yadda yadda. 6) The P39 Aircobra. No offence, but its whole purpose (high altitude interceptor anyone?) revolved around the 2 stage supercharger . . . which they left out of production. Literally killed its reason for existence. Still not sure why. "The Soviets liked it!" can be countered with "the Soviets were using biplanes to bomb enemy trenches at night". 7) J2M Too long in design, too underdeveloped to warrant large scale production 8) Me109T Mph . . . giggle . . . 9) Any more modern single engine fighter shot down by a Fokker D-XXI. I mean, really. I'm looking at you, Polikarpov! 10) And the worst aircraft of world war two is - By number shot down the answer is . . . the Il-2. By number bombed on the ground it's the Me109. "Looks like we're out of time, folks!" *From the Wiki: "Protracted development problems with its Rolls-Royce Peregrine engines delayed the project and only 114 Whirlwinds were built"

@WildBillCox13 Жыл бұрын

Sorry 'bout the He-111 Balloon Fighter. But-hey-someone had to remember it.

@raypurchase801 Жыл бұрын

The British were preparing designs for easy-to-make emergency fighters, as early as 1938. The Germans left their emergency designs until it was already too late. What a bunch numpties.

@robert-trading-as-Bob69 11 ай бұрын

It wasn't a bad aircraft. It was a badly TIMED aircraft. Personally, I would have liked to see it with two engines close to the hull under the wings with a standard tail configuration. The Germans could not get the glue right for their version of the Mosquito, but we're desperate enough to try glue a jet plane together...