Warbird Information Exchange

Rather a pointless excercise in my view, since what you'd end up with wouldn't be an He162 any more. Modern engine, modern composite material, it would simply be a lookalike recreation of (as James has already pointed out) a not very significant (albeit interesting) aircraft type. The builders have had a hard enough job selling the Me262 and Oscar replicas, I'd say it would be nigh on commercially impossible to replicate the He162 in the manner you suggest.

Thoughts?

I love it! Even though this "Partly Wooden Wonder" has definitely been overshadowed by the 262 I think it has enough potential and intrigue at becoming an airshow aircraft.

But what I'm talking about here is a New Build production run. I think seeing a slightly updated and modified version built up in a kit form (especially if a 2 seater was produced) could be a success. Now when I say a success, I mean maybe "The Company" could produce 10 new aircraft and successfully sell them off to owners and operators that know and respect the history of this reptile. But of course when your talking new build aircraft, three things have to enter your mind and never leave:

SAFTEY, RELIABILITY, AND LONGEVITY -I believe I read that in a post from Gary.

So that means:

-Different Power-plant -For safety and maintenance issues
-Modified building techniques- New glue, new materials
-Updated design- Altering the overall design to make the craft much more safe since we've seen over 70 years of aeronautical advancement take place
-New or updated Avionics
-Airframe extension- A Dual Control example would be essential

And a host of other things I'm sure. Anyone else have anything?

_________________
Keep Em' Flying,
Christopher Soltis
Dedicated to the preservation and education of The Sikorsky Memorial Airport

CASC Blog Page: http://ctair-space.blogspot.com/
Warbird Wear: https://www.redbubble.com/people/warbirdwear/shop

Chicks Dig Warbirds.......right?

quote from previous message:


OK, so back to my original comment: If restoring the aircraft requires replacing all the original wood - which I think is most of the structural material of this aircraft - why not simply leave the original as is and build a reproduction? You would be replacing the engine in any case - anyone out there want to trust their life to a Jumo that needs overhauling every ten hours? You would probably also add some modern avionics. So, new wood, new engine, practically everything else replaced even if restoring an "original" - how much original would be left? Restoring an original He.162 to fly simply makes no sense, because there would be so little left when you were done!

_________________
Kevin McCartney

Which I answered in a previous comment after yours... As I also pointed out the issues of 'modernising' or even considering using the original glue joints (just like me109109 said). I also gave a current parallel.

One other reason for using an 'original' is that certification in the UK (and other countries without an Experimental category. And the UK is the world's second largest warbird market) is possible that route, but a new build near look replica is a tough gig, as has been seen with the Flug Werke machines.

Warbird kid's idea has some merit, as a route I'd not discussed but the maths would be interesting.

Marine Air - can you point me to Bob Hoover's original remarks, please?

Cheers

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

You are right that Replicas would be the most viable option to preserve the historical integrity of this example and, arguably, for the safety of the user BUT you are forgetting that Joe Shmo Billionaire Warbird Nut (yes Nut is his surname) wouldn't want to spend a gazillion dollars on a replica he/she wants an original aircraft. Now, as it has been debated many, many times before, what constitutes a replica or an original example? In this case all hardware, mounts, avionics, major components, and DATA PLATE/ Ser. No would be used (basically everything but wiring, engine, wood, plumbing etc.). If I had the money I wouldn’t want a Yak, Oscar, Me262 replica because they aren’t true warbirds because the have no original history. Therefore a flying ORIGINAL example is much more desirable to the enthusiast. Does spending millions of dollars restoring any fighter make any sense at all? No. Is it worth it to keep history alive? Yes. Obviously this is all a matter of opinion, but what you must realize is that when you say something "doesn't make much sense" pertaining to anything dealing with warbirds, the fact is that those of us who own/operate them have very little to begin with.

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

Well, let us simply this then and for the sake of argument lets build new ones in said manner because otherwise how many originals or components are left out there to satisfy the Billionaire Warbird Nuts? Who gets one and who does not?

Replicating one would be the only practical way for one to ever possibly fly again safely and routinely. Resto and original one to fly, sure, but most likely that will be the only one ever flying again, period! Why did the Oscars and ME 262's not sell, I don't know, maybe not enought millionaires out there anymore? They are not as sexy as a P-51? Price?

Anyway you build one now from scratch, be it wood, metal, composites or from a bar of soap, the plane will not have any provenance, but, it will be a plane that will be unique, fly when needed and hopefully reliable.

Aw hell, lets all just fly Cessnas!

There are other factors, but the primary one is any replica is always outclassed by an aircraft with any degree of mildly credibly provenance and thus 'history'. That tips the same price tag number from 'overpriced' to 'investment'.

Massive simplification, of course.

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I have read it before that it was Hoover's least favorite aircraft to fly. COmpletely unstable, thrust and weight of the engine place above the longitudinal axis, etc. He also said it didn't have enough vertical fin area. I checked but didn't find those in his book "Forever Flying" a;though he does mention the He-162. He says in the book that it was difficult and required both hands on the stick to fly. (page 94,95) He also said the pilots had their pics taken in front of the airplane before they flew it in case they got killed in it!"
That said, it would be awesome to see one sitting on the ramp at an airshow that flew in.
Maybe Nelson Ezell's shop could rebuild it since they re-engined a Temco TT-1 Pinto jet and got a Seafire flying again.
If someone were to build a flying replica, then my suggestion would be to lighten it as much as possible.Get rid of the lead ballast in the nose, ejection seat and cannons. Put a turbofan engine in the fuselage but retain the nacelle as an intake scoop. Maybe a P&W JT-15D with 2200 lbs of thrust would work. Sneak the exhaust out the rear tail cone area. FIgure out a way to get more fuel on board.
Fine tune the aircraft aeridynamically.

Hell, if you´re going to build one, then why not try this one...



Pic courtesy of Luft46

Aren´t most ofthe WW1 era aircraft now flying essentially replicas? That doesn´t seem to bother anyone.

If I think correctly the problem isn't bothering, is "who's gonna pay for it"...

_________________
rreis

If you want pictures, see rreis@flickr

interesting page with many restoration photos, albeit of a different He162

http://memorial.flight.free.fr/He162uk.html