Questions on He162 painting

[Franck Oudin]

Thank you Yves,and please do send me the picutres.

oudin.franck@wanadoo.fr


All the best FRANCK.

[Yves Marino]

Originally Posted by Roger Gaemperle

Hi Simon,

Couldn't the nose be painted in red primer rather than dark green? As far as I have seen so far wooden parts were commonly painted with a red or yellow primer.
Regards,
Roger

Here two photos showing the primer on the wooden parts of 120086 in Rockcliffe:




And two other showing red paint/primer where the nose was:

Originally Posted by Simon Schatz

Roger!
As there is no colour picture of White 6 is avalible I think it's not possible to answer that. Have a look at the He 162 standing in the salt mine Tarthun. There the nose caps have different colours. I can't understand why.
Cheers, Simon

If this is the photo, I think the noses are in the same colour, just the lighting is different.Or not?


And this in the back is the nose 3 weeks ago!


It seems to me there is no darker ton (dark green) under the blue-grey.

If you visit the museum's site there are descriptions for two a/c:
http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/c...(120076).shtml
http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/c...(120086).shtml
But the photos are the same (go to "Additional photos" button) and show the "yellow 4" 120076 with splinter camo, perfectly restored. Only 2 old photos show the 120086?

Less than a year ago Feniks wrote in this forum:

Originally Posted by feniks

There are two planes of this kind in the storage area (not open to the public), and one of them could likely be sold or exchanged.
feniks

Does somebody know what happened to 120076? For sure it wasn't in the Rockcliffe Museum (or was, but very well hidden...)

[John Melson]

Yves,
The photo of the nose at the back is actually the nose cone from 120076. When 120076 was shipped to Canada, 47 MU painted the number '2' on the various broken down components in order not to mix the parts with 120086. 120086 components were marked with the number '3'. Somewhere along the line the nose cone for 120076 was damaged (a hole was punched in it) and the nose cone from 120086 was used on 120076 for display.
If you are able to revisit the museum and see the other side of the nose cone and inspect the damaged area you will be able to see all the layers of paint.
Cheers,
John

[Yves Marino]

Originally Posted by John Melson

Yves,
The photo of the nose at the back is actually the nose cone from 120076. When 120076 was shipped to Canada, 47 MU painted the number '2' on the various broken down components in order not to mix the parts with 120086. 120086 components were marked with the number '3'. Somewhere along the line the nose cone for 120076 was damaged (a hole was punched in it) and the nose cone from 120086 was used on 120076 for display.
If you are able to revisit the museum and see the other side of the nose cone and inspect the damaged area you will be able to see all the layers of paint.
Cheers,
John

Hi John!
Thanks for the information!
It's not possible to make a photo from the back of the nose cone now, but maybe they will turn it around one day. On the detail I posted before you can see some crack on the "dark side" of the cone and the number "359" on the front side. But take a look at this photo, from a site Stephen wrote about some postings earlier:

This nose is badly damaged. Yoy can see a painted "2" (I guess?)on it.

On one of the museums photos you see the same plane with an intact or repaired nose cone:


I really don't know which photo was taken earlier, but if they have taken the better part for 120076, where is the worse?

[John Melson]

Hi Yves,
I was mistaken when I said "If you are able to revisit the museum and see the other side of the nose cone and inspect the damaged area you will be able to see all the layers of paint." Closer inspection of one of Stephen's photos shows that repairs have been done and what I mistook for a hole was nothing other than a bunch of tape.
The writing on the damaged nose is '47 MU', the '2' is not visible as it is on the top of the cone.
Suspect the bottom photo showing "an intact or repaired nose cone" is indeed after repairs.
Both photos were taken in Manitoba before 120086 was shipped to the museum in Ottawa.
Your quote "but if they have taken the better part for 120076, where is the worse?" - The undamaged nose cone belonging to 120086 and went onto 120076 for display, the damaged nose cone belonging to 120076 went onto 120086 which is shown in your photo(s).
As 120086 now sits - the fuselage, wings and tail plane are maked with the number '3' and the nose cone marked with the number '2'.
Cheers,
John

[Yves Marino]

Originally Posted by John Melson

The writing on the damaged nose is '47 MU', the '2' is not visible as it is on the top of the cone.

Hi John!
When I wrote "You can see a painted 2" I really located it on this photo, on the top of the nose cone:

The second photo shows in fact the damaged and repaired nose:

And in present days the same nose cone is damaged again:

You eventually see black paint (must be a 2).
If I only new this! But I'm optimistic - the next one who will visit the museum in Rockcliffe will be advised (if he reads our forum of course).

[O.Menu]

Originally Posted by Yves Marino

Does somebody know what happened to 120076? For sure it wasn't in the Rockcliffe Museum (or was, but very well hidden...)

If i m right 120076 (or 120086?) is awaited to the Deutsches Technikmuseum Berlin...

[SMF144]

O. Menu,

I hope 120086 is not slated for the Deutsches Technikmuseum Berlin because it's a rare bird. All I can say is I'm glad I took many photos of both airframes.

Stephen