Hi there I’m located in Australia and currently owned Dr Ernst Heinkel 1937 540k Mercedes I’m interested on your work on Heinkel and contact with test pilots relatives
Vahe David Demirjian, e-mail, 05.08.2020 01:21
The drawings and illustrations of the He 176 on this page are inaccurate. Photos and drawings of the He 176 V1 are provided in Koos (1994), and they show a plane with a retractable main gear and fixed nose gear, but also an advanced, totally enclosed cockpit, with a frameless single-piece clear nose.
Volker Koos, Heinkel He 176 – Dichtung und Wahrheit, Jet&Prop 1/94 p. 17–21
bothman, 20.06.2011 13:27
(possible analogy: modern electric cars? range, i.e need to recharge batteries, a factor in current efficiency.)
pablo ruiz, e-mail, 30.01.2011 15:43
verdadera joya tecnologica
Rafa - brazil, e-mail, 08.04.2010 21:15
It look like a zeppelim.
Douglas Downer-Smith, e-mail, 28.11.2009 01:03
There have been many misconceptions about this aircraft which through thorough research and creating a relaible 2D drawing from the original two photographs in the Public Record Office, Kew, London, England, I can dispel. I have given several lectures on the subject of this aircraft in the UK and Germany. I have even recreated the aircraft in modern aircraft design software. I would be happy to correspond with anyone with a genuine interest in this unique aircraft.
Brodie Berkenkamp, 29.10.2008 01:44
Tony Wood & Bill Gunston note there is allot of contention as to true shape & size of He176 in their 1977 book. Wonder if flying surface plan similarities to the 178 are correct for the He 176? Guess I've got more digging to do.
BRI'AN, e-mail, 18.10.2007 20:42
MEIN NAZI LUFTWAFFE,HE-176 NEIN BESTMANN,UND NEIN SCHELL!
Tim, e-mail, 08.08.2007 03:25
Craft was built solely as a prototype. Heinkel's high-demand contracts throughout the war for conventional craft led to the abandonment of the project. A fortunate thing, as the Walther motors were unreliable to the point of being deathtraps for the aviators ( As Messerschmidt would discover with the ME-163...)
james s., e-mail, 01.06.2007 17:31
to E. Rexer [your e-mail address doesn't appear] --- Because of its limited range. (like Me 163, another experimental model.) Rocket fuel expended in short time. in this case range "59 mi." i.e in its sorties 30 mi. before return to airbase. (possible analogy: modern electric cars? range, i.e need to recharge batteries, a factor in current efficiency.) PS try Spellcheck...
