Warbird Information Exchange

From everything I have read about them one would conclude that they where pretty ill handling machines, esepecially in the hands of a rookie pilot. The plane took quite a few inexperienced pilots for their last rides.

I would love to see one fly, but, they would have to debug it first or get someone with brass balls to fly it!

It's possible. I looked the Ottawa machine over pretty closely during a visit in '07. The Luftwaffe camo appears original, although it looks like the markings were painted out, replaced with RAF roundels, and then overpainted again with Luftwaffe insignia. Being primarily made of wood (by slave labor, and in a hurry with little quality control,) the airframe has deteriorated quit a bit over the years, but it's complete and still in relatively good shape. Here are some snapshots...

SN

a lil too far for this lil Nurse

i wouldn't want to be anyone's life insurance agent who is dumb enough to fly that death trap!!

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

deathtrap?

didn't Eric Brown find it to be delightful to fly albeit with not enough fuel?

Something this rare should not be flown. Not only is there risk of crashing the original, but in bring this to flightworthy much of the original aircraft would be destroyed even prior to flight.

Considering the simplicity of the design, a flightworthy reproduction could likely be built for less than the cost of restoring a flightworthy original. With the single engine,the cost would probably be much less than the Me.262 repros, which were expensive enough that there were problems in finding buyers. Since most airshow attendees do not make much distinction between a "real" and "copy" there is little point in placing such a rare aircraft at risk. The construction of several copies, at the same time as restoring an original would also educate far more people about this piece of aviation history.

_________________
Kevin McCartney

i agree w/ old iron, but a curious question comes up..... is the ejection seat still hot on this 162??

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

I shot a couple dozen pics of 120076 back in 2000, and at the time I was convinced that it was original paint. I was later informed (through this or maybe the Key Publishing, Hyperscale or LSP forums) that the paint was actually redone in the 60's sometime by a group who's name escapes me. They did a very authentic-looking job though. For some reason I am under the impression that some members of said group were former Luftwaffe, but I could be wrong.

As far as making it airworthy that would be amazing, but with what you'd have left at the end I think a new-build would be more realistic, practical, and cost-effective. I've always thought that doing a modern-day computer diagnostic of this aircraft would be a great project for some school program; it would be great to find out how airworthy they really were, not discounting Mr. Brown's experience of course.

greg v.

Generally a fair comment, but in this case, I'd disagree, although you make some good following points!

The logic I'd hope to be applied here is based on criteria of value (historic, technical importance and, as you've said rarity) and weighed against the benefits of flying it*. Technically the 162 is 'interesting' but not of great significance**, nor is the type 'historically significant', and while it is indeed 'rare', it's not that rare, with the majority of the survivors are in national level collections in several different countries - in fact this example is for sale because it was duplicated in a national collection.

Two examples have been conserved / restored recently (Musee de l'Air by the Memorial Flight in France - including a working landing gear) and in the late eighties (by ARC at Duxford for the IWM at Lambeth), as well as a couple of others (the Can Av example being one) being in essentially original condition. The bases are covered, with one flyer of low importance for a heritage heritage, and would have the merit of exploring the reality of the type's potential performance with a good build standard and original fixtures, rather than the (apparently inevitable) diversions from original design in this level of recreation. Note that all the recreations I'm aware of (Grumman F3F, Messerschmitt Me 262, Flug Wurke FW 190s and Nakajima Oscars) have a fair amount of part difference to the 'original prototypes' and generally no part inter changeability. Missing equipment is another factor.

While replacing the wood would be a major substitution of the volume and weight of the aircraft, refurbishing the metal fixtures and fittings would be critically vastly 'easier' and less expensive (still tricky and expensive!) than making them from scratch, and would be a very similar process to what is being undertaken by Glynn Powell and AvSpecs with Jerry Yagen's Mosquito, currently in NZ.


However there is a huge difference between an original and a replica to potential owners, and how much they will pay. There is, despite a perception otherwise a difference between look alikes and 'originals' in airshow bookings - however if you have the only game in town like the Flug Werke FW 190s seen at Flying Legends last year, you'll be welcome (but you'd not get a free coffee at the show with such a lookalike replica if an original Focke Wulf was available).

Note that it's now been through one organisation very able to return something like this to the sky to a very high standard of originality, safety and fidelity.

Regards,

*That doesn't include 'because it'd be cool' or 'awesome', or someone gets off by getting to fly it, but that we might learn something from flying it, it could add to our knowledge of the type's performance as a machine of a very specific era and need and it would be able to be demonstrated - broadening the diversity of aircraft types flying. It would also be cool, but we won't mention that on the application.

**But thoughts of 'significant technical importance' welcome!

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Bad idea. Bad, bad, bad idea...

_________________
Defending Stearmans on WIX since Jeff started badmouthing them back in 2005.

Why?

I'd like to see more solid data as to the types flightworthyness but in the meantime Eric Brown's opinion is a good enough start. Poor / sabotaged construction isn't a relevant reason to avoid restoration, the other issue I can think of is issues with the original type of engine, but that's not beyond the wit of man to figure out a plan either.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

From what I recall James, and bear in mind this is just off the top of my head, the glue that the German's were forced to use would slowly devour the wood. I believe that that was in part one of the reasons that the aircraft suffered so many structural failures. That and it would be fairly easy to sabotage glue joints if you were of a mind to. I wouldn't touch a restored one unless it had been completely rewooded (if that isn't a word it should be). A new production one with new wood and modern glues would be a different story. I have nothing but admiration for Captain Brown (and I think Bob Hoover flew the POF's example) and if he said it was a decent flying airplane then I believe him, but a restored original one might make you a latter day casualty of the Nazi's slave labor program.

Dan

_________________
Defending Stearmans on WIX since Jeff started badmouthing them back in 2005.

Ditto to what Dan Jones said. Bob Hoover has stated it was the worst aircraft design, jet or otherwise that he haas ever flown. It was desinged and flown in something like 38 days. Not much time for cutting edge technology.
Notice how there aren't many Mosquitos, Timm N2t Tutors, Culver Cadets, PQ-14's Bestmanns, Cessna T-50's, or much of anything built of wood from the forties still flying with original glue?
NOt only were the aircraft built with a lot of glue, but the metals weren't the best qualities either. The Germans were under immense pressure from allied bombing.
There was supposed to have been a glider version, He-162S. It would be neat to see someone build an example and get some flight time. Then they could always option to use the glider as a basis for a flying replica using a turbofan.

I wasn't advocating using the original wood. A restoration should include all new wood with modern glue to do otherwise would be foolish. The original skins should be preserved for original colors etc. It would be a really cool aircraft to see fly with a Me-109, FW-190, and a Me-262. IMO, with a competant pilot it could be cool to see. May not be the best flyer, but there are some pretty bad planes flying out there anyhow. As to the 38 day design period reasoning, keep in mind the P-51 was designed in only 117 days. Therefore the short development period isn't always a legitimate position to fall back on. Either way, I hope it goes to a good party that will do her right.

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

Ok, so the replicating thing has been thrown in and so has the rewooding part, that new word again, but how about making one or restoring one using new composite materials, like Carbon Fibre? Vastly superior to wood and in some cases better than aluminum or steel with the ease of maintenance of a canoe!

The engine part has been pretty much figured out by ME 262 folks and the rest can be done Rutan style.

Thoughts?