Heinkel He 170

Heinkel He 170


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Heinkel He 170

The Heinkel He 170 was an export version of the military version of the high speed He 70, originally designed as a prestige airline for Lufthansa.

The He 170 was very similar to the military versions of the He 70, but with a much more powerful engine. The BMW engine of the He 70 was replaced with a 910hp Gnome-Rhône 14K Mistral-Major fourteen-cylinder radial air cooled engine, produced under licence as the Manfred Weiss WM-K-14. The engine was enclosed in a circular cowling, giving the He 170 a very different appearance to the 'hunch-nosed' He 70. The new engines raised the top speed of the aircraft from 224 to 270mph.

The prototype He 170 made its maiden flight in 1937. It was followed by eighteen production aircraft, which were delivered to Hungary in 1937-38, and entered service with I Independent Long-Range Reconnaissance Group in Carpatho-Ruthenia in March 1939.

In the summer of 1941 the Hungarians took part in the German attack on the Soviet Union. The He 170 saw a short period of front line service, starting on 27 June 1941. It quickly became clear that it was not fit for military service even this early in the war on the Eastern Front. It was badly under-armed, with only two machine guns, and the wooden wings were seen as a fire risk. As with the He 70 the elliptical wings and low cockpit room limited its usefulness as a reconnaissance aircraft, and it was withdrawn from the front line in July.

Engine: Gnome-Rhone 14K Mistral-Major
Power: 910hp
Max Speed: 270mph at 11,155ft
Armament: Two 7.92mm machine guns


Indian Man Claims He’s 170 Years Old

A retired cobbler from northern India, Mahashta Murasi, claims he was born in January 1835, making him not only the oldest man on earth, but the oldest to have ever lived, according to the Guinness World Records.

According to indian officials, the man was born at home in the city of Bangalore on January 6th 1835, and is recorded to have lived in Varanasi since 1903. He worked as a cobbler in the city until 1957, when he retired at the already venerable age of 122.

“I have been alive so long, that my great grand-children have been dead for years” explains Mr Murasi. “Somehow death forgot about me. And now there’s hardly any hope left. Look at the statistics, nobody dies past 150, even less at 170. At that point, I guess I’m immortal or something. I might as well enjoy it!”

The information about the purported 179-year-old man actually originated with a fictitious story published by World News Daily Report on 28 February 2014. That site’s stock in trade the posting of fake news articles, and a disclaimer on the site states that all “news articles contained within worldnewsdailyreport.com are fiction, and presumably fake news.”

OKay, this story about the 179-year-old man in India is fake, but is it possible? According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the longest documented human lifespan is that of Jeanne Louise Calment, who was born in France on 1875 and passed away at the age of 122 on 1997.


Me 163 Komet Rocket replica

This is a replica of the 163 Komet which was a was rocket-powered fighter aircraft. Also on display is an actual German Walters 109-509A bi-fuel rocket engine used in the ME-163B Komet fighter.

Production of the Komet began late in World War II and it was not introduced until late 1944. The performance of the Komet rocket was unparalleled, however, it did not prove to be an effective fighter and the fuel system often caused fires or explosions. Although much faster than any Allied aircraft, the flight duration was short and when the fuel was depleted, the aircraft became an unpowered glider for the return trip.


Heinkel He 170 - History

February saw deliveries of the He 162 to its first operational unit, I./JG 1 (1st Group of Jagdgeschwader 1 Oesau — "1st Fighter Wing"), which had previously flown the Focke-Wulf Fw 190A. I./JG 1 was transferred to Parchim, which, at the time, was also a base for the Me 262-equipped Jagdgeschwader 7, some 80 km south-southwest of the Heinkel factory's coastal airfield at "Marienehe" (today known as Rostock-Schmarl, northwest of the Rostock city centre), where the pilots could pick up their new jets and start intensive training beginning in March 1945. This was all happening simultaneously with unrelenting Allied air attacks on the transportation network, aircraft production facilities and petroleum, oil, and lubrication (POL) product-making installations of the Third Reich — these had now begun to also target the Luftwaffe's jet and rocket fighter bases as well. On 7 April, the USAAF bombed the field at Parchim with 134 B-17 Flying Fortresses, inflicting serious losses and damage to the infrastructure. Two days later, I./JG 1 moved to an airfield at nearby Ludwigslust and, less than a week later, moved again to an airfield at Leck, near the Danish border. On 8 April, II./JG 1 moved to Heinkel's aforementioned Rostock northwestern coastal suburban factory airfield and started converting from Fw 190As to He 162s. III./JG 1 was also scheduled to convert to the He 162, but the Gruppe disbanded on 24 April and its personnel were used to fill in the vacancies in other units.

The He 162 first saw combat in mid-April 1945. On 19 April, Feldwebel Günther Kirchner shot down a Royal Air Force fighter, and although the victory was credited to a flak unit, the British pilot confirmed during interrogation that he had been downed by an He 162. The Heinkel and its pilot were lost as well, shot down by an RAF Hawker Tempest while on approach to land, a point at which Allied pilots targeted German jets. Though still in training, I./JG 1 had begun to score kills in mid-April, but had also lost 13 He 162s and 10 pilots. Ten of the aircraft were operational losses, caused by flameouts and sporadic structural failures. Only two of the 13 aircraft were actually shot down. The He 162's 30-minute fuel capacity also caused problems, as at least two of JG 1's pilots were killed attempting emergency deadstick landings after exhausting their fuel.

During its exceedingly brief operational service career, the 162's cartridge-type ejector seat was employed under combat conditions by JG1 pilots at least three times. The first recorded use was by Lt Rudolf Schmidt on April 20, with Fw Erwin Steeb ejecting from his 162 the following day. Finally, Hptm Paul-Heinrich Dahne attempted an ejection on April 24, but was killed when the aircraft's cockpit canopy failed to detach.

In the last days of April, as the Soviet troops approached, II./JG 1 evacuated from Marienehe and on 2 May joined the I./JG 1 at Leck. On 3 May, all of JG 1's surviving He 162s were restructured into two groups, I. Einsatz ("Combat") and II. Sammel ("Collection"). All JG 1's aircraft were grounded on 5 May, when General Admiral Hans-Georg von Friedeburg signed the surrender of all German armed forces in the Netherlands, Northwest Germany and Denmark. On 6 May, when the British reached their airfields, JG 1 turned their He 162s over to the Allies, and examples were shipped to the U.S., Britain, France, and the Soviet Union for further evaluation. Erprobungskommando 162 fighters, which had been passed on to JV 44, an elite jet unit under Adolf Galland a few weeks earlier, were all destroyed by their crews to keep them from falling into Allied hands. By the time of the German unconditional surrender on 8 May 1945, 120 He 162s had been delivered a further 200 had been completed and were awaiting collection or flight-testing and about 600 more were in various stages of production.

The difficulties experienced by the He 162 were caused mainly by its rush into production, not by any inherent design flaws. One experienced Luftwaffe pilot who flew it called it a "first-class combat aircraft." Eric "Winkle" Brown of the Fleet Air Arm, who flew a record 486 different types of aircraft, said the He 162 had "the lightest and most effective aerodynamically balanced controls" he had experienced. Brown had been warned to treat the rudder with suspicion due to a number of in-flight failures. This warning was passed on by Brown to RAF pilot Flt Lt R A Marks, but was apparently not heeded. On 9 November 1945, during a demonstration flight from RAE Farnborough, one of the fin and rudder assemblies broke off at the start of a low-level roll causing the aircraft to crash into Oudenarde Barracks, Aldershot, killing Marks and a soldier on the ground.


The Gentleman Pirate

Stede Bonnet's career as the "Gentleman Pirate" may represent the worst midlife crisis on record. In 1717, Bonnet, a retired British army major with a large sugar plantation in Barbados, abandoned his wife, children, land and fortune bought a ship and turned to piracy on the high seas. Though his crew and fellow pirates judged him to be an inept captain, Bonnet's adventures earned him the nickname "the Gentleman Pirate," and today his legend lingers in the annals of pirate history. But why did a man who seemed to have everything give it all up for a life of crime?

Related Content

For a few years in the early 18th century, from about 1715 to 1720, piracy experienced a golden age. "Stede Bonnet was part of a gang of pirates operating in the Caribbean that are responsible for the images we have of pirates today," says historian Colin Woodard, author of The Republic of Pirates. The popular pirate, as known from Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island to the recent Pirates of the Caribbean movie trilogy, was inspired by these buccaneers. But even during their lifetimes, pirates like Edward "Blackbeard" Thatch (or Teach) and Ann Bonny were romanticized. "They were folk heroes," says Woodard. Though the authorities characterized pirates as "devils and demons, enemies of all mankind," Woodard says, "many colonial citizens supported them. People saw pirates as Robin Hood figures, socking it to the man on their behalf."

Piracy was a lifestyle, a profession and a political cause in the early 18th century. Many of the men who turned to piracy off the American coast were escaped slaves and indentured servants or colonists who had failed to make a living on land. During this period, Woodard says, "ordinary people were upset about the growing gap between rich and poor, and the growing authoritarian power of the British empire." Though a hanging offense (unless one bribed officials), piracy was an attractive option for men in desperate circumstances with some knowledge of seafaring and a deep loathing for authority.

Stede Bonnet had no knowledge of seafaring, having sailed only as a passenger. Moreover, he had no apparent reason to rage against the establishment. Bonnet was born in the 1680s in Barbados and, according to the transcript of his 1718 trial, had "the advantage of liberal education." After retiring from the army with a rank of major, Bonnet bought an estate and settled in as a member of respectable society, where he spent a decade raising a family until he suffered some kind of mental break. A contemporary account of Bonnet's career suggested that "some Discomforts he found in the married state" led to "this Humour of going a-pyrating," but it seems unlikely that a nagging wife alone could be enough to drive a law-abiding gentleman to piracy.

"There have been a number of theories that it was something mental," says David Moore, an archaeologist and historian with the North Carolina Maritime Museum in Beaufort. Moore notes that, according to the legal record, Bonnet borrowed � (about $400,000 today) around 1717. This suggests that he may have been having financial problems, perhaps due to a hurricane, drought or other natural disaster wiping out his sugar crop.

"Bonnet may have been unbalanced," says Woodard. "From the genealogical record we know that there had been disruptions in his life. One of his children had died." Woodard believes that Bonnet's conversion to piracy stemmed from a combination of personal pressures and politics. Though historians cannot be sure, Woodard says that Bonnet was probably a Jacobite, supporting James Stuart as King of England over the German-born George I. Whether out of loyalty to James or simply animosity toward authority, "most pirates at the time thought of themselves as in revolt against King George," says Woodard. "There was a lot of toasting to King James III."

Regardless of his motivation, Bonnet was determined to carry out his plan. Generally, anyone embarking on a career of piracy would begin by seizing a ship. Bonnet purchased his sloop legally. He armed it with ten cannons, hired a crew of 70 and named the ship Revenge. As Bonnet had no obvious enemy against which to revenge himself, it's likely he chose a name that sounded menacing and pirate-esque—indeed, many pirate ships used the name Revenge.

When Bonnet's Revenge was stocked and ready, he ran up a jolly roger and ordered the crew to sail to Virginia, where they would raid commercial vessels. The skill of Bonnet's crew, many of whom were experienced pirates, helped him quickly capture several ships, which were loaded down with the treasures of the trans-Atlantic trade.

After these early successes, Bonnet and his crew sailed south to Honduras, a well-known pirate hangout, to spend their booty. There, Bonnet met the most famous and feared pirate of his day: Blackbeard. Born in Bristol, England, Blackbeard had worked his way up from deckhand to captain of his own ship—the 40-gun Queen Anne's Revenge—and cultivated a reputation for wildness and unpredictability. Bonnet was thrilled to make Blackbeard's acquaintance, and the two pirate captains agreed to cruise together.

After they set sail, Blackbeard realized he was dealing with an amateur and decided to seize Bonnet's command. He kept Bonnet aboard Queen Anne's Revenge and sent his first mate to take over Bonnet's ship, with the consent of Bonnet's crew. The stout, upper-class Bonnet, Blackbeard explained, was not suited to be a pirate captain, and would do better to relax aboard the larger ship than suffer the trouble of commanding his own. Though nominally Blackbeard's guest, Bonnet was essentially his prisoner, and with bruised feelings Bonnet plotted revenge.

When Blackbeard docked his fleet in North Carolina, Bonnet went ashore and returned to find that Blackbeard had stripped and abandoned the Revenge and marooned some 25 crewmembers on a small island. Bonnet took his ship back, picked up the men, and resumed his piratical pursuits, this time with the goal of punishing Blackbeard. Unfortunately, Blackbeard had a head start, so Bonnet had to content himself with seizing merchant vessels. His skills had improved since he had first embarked, and by abusing his crew, killing prisoners and threatening civilians, Bonnet eventually gained a fearsome reputation of his own.

As word spread about the Gentleman Pirate, the governor of South Carolina commissioned Colonel William Rhett to capture him. In August of 1718, Rhett cornered Bonnet at the mouth of the Cape Fear River, and after a violent firefight he managed to arrest the pirates. Though the hotheaded Bonnet declared he would blow up himself and the ship before he would surrender, his men overruled him and gave themselves up as prisoners. In custody, Bonnet tried to take advantage of his upper-class background in appealing to the governor for mercy and blaming everything on Blackbeard. His trial dragged out long after his men had been hanged, and the trial transcript is "one of the most valuable historical records we have about Bonnet and Blackbeard," says David Moore. Finally convicted of piracy, Stede Bonnet was hanged on December 10, 1718, after less than two years of adventure on the high seas.

Bonnet's execution came a month after Blackbeard had met his own bloody end in battle with the British Royal Navy. By the 1720s, the golden age of piracy was over. Captain Bartholomew Roberts, a contemporary of Blackbeard and Bonnet, declared "a merry Life and a short one shall be my Motto," and, as it turned out, that's exactly what happened to most pirates. Though Bonnet's career was beset with misfortune and his life not always merry, he likely had more fun plundering ships than he would have had at home on his quiet plantation. Whatever his motives for becoming the Gentleman Pirate, Stede Bonnet's name would not live on today had he simply been a gentleman.

About Amy Crawford

Amy Crawford is a Michigan-based freelance journalist writing about cities, science, the environment, art and education. A longtime Smithsonian contributor, her work also appears in CityLab and the Boston Globe.


No Heinkel HE-177, where do the engines go?

I have looked at and own several books relevant to the questions at hand: where resources from the He-177 would be applied, could they be added to the He-219, the performance of the He-219,and how would an increase in resources He-219 (and other Luftwaffe nightfighters) affect the Bomber Command's campaign.

While citing specifics from these will be pointless, as you have totally missed most of the point I was making, I've cut and pasted from email receipts a list of some of books of the relevant books I have in my personal library. You can poke through these and find out for your self that you're clueless. I doubt you will, though.

Heinkel He 219: An Illustrated History of Germany's Premier Nightfighter (Schiffer Military History)Remp, Roland, Brand: Schiffer Pub Ltd

The Heinkel He 219 'Uhu': A Detailed Guide to the Luftwaffe's Ultimate Nightfighter (Airframe Album) Airframe Album Franks, Richard A.

The Complete Book of Fighters: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Every Fighter Aircraft Built and Flown William Green, Gordon Swanborough

The Ultimate Piston Fighters of the Luftwaffe
Miranda, Justo

Powering the Luftwaffe: German Aero Engines of World War II Paperback – April 26, 2013 by Jason R. Wisniewski

Luftwaffe Advanced Aircraft Projects to 1945, Vol. 1: Fighters & Ground-Attack Aircraft, Arado to Junkers Meyer, Ingolf, Brand: Midland Publishing Ltd.

Luftwaffe Secret Projects: Fighters, 1939-1945
Walter Schick, Ingolf Meyer, Elke Weal, John Weal, Brand: Ian Allan Publishing

Luftwaffe Advanced Aircraft Projects to 1945, Vol. 2: Fighters & Ground-Attack Aircraft, Lippisch to Zeppelin Meyer, Ingolf

Bomber Command: The Myths and Reality of the Strategic Bombing Offensive, 1939-45 Hastings, Max

The Bombers and the Bombed: Allied Air War Over Europe 1940-1945
Overy, Richard

BOMBERS OVER BERLIN: The RAF Offensive November 1943 - March 1944
Cooper, Alan W

The Bomber War: Arthur Harris and the Allied Bomber Offensive 1939-1945
Neillands, Robin

The Berlin Raids: R.A.F. Bomber Command Winter 1943/44
Middlebrook, Martin

Heinkel He177 Greif: Heinkel's Strategic Bomber Hardcover – 5 Mar 2009
by J.Richard Smith (Author), Eddie J. Creek (Author)

Heinkel: He 177, 277, 274
Manfred Griehl, Joachim Dressel

Bomber Units of the Luftwaffe 1933 - 1945, Volume 1
De Zeng, Henry L. IV and Douglas G. Stankey

Junkers Ju 88 Volume 2: The Bomber at War - Day and Night Operations

Deleted member 1487

it certanly did not help.
The Macchi 205 was close enough to the 202 to make transitioning from 202 to 205 production easier.

The G55 and Re2005 were never going to be there in numbers.

Having a few hundred C205 in late 42 instead of 202 would have been a significant help.

Of course having more DB605 in 1942 would not really help much in Germany and the engine was not producing reliable power until later.

As we've seen in other threads, most of which yours, what was really needed was a reliable DB603 or Jumo 213 in mass production in 42, not more DB605.

As for the RA, just giving them Bf109F-4 in large numbers as the LW moved to the Bf109G, or just giving them Bf109G ASAP, might have made better use of existing (italian) units and trained pilots.

PhilKearny

As always, you ignore the substance. I made points beyond that of the He-219. These points are probably too subtle for you.

As to the issue of the He-219, most of the various books I cite discuss the He-219 in them. That makes them relevant. These tomes offer far more substance than anything you have cited. The other books discuss other aspects of my argument. The ones you have ignored and/or misunderstood.

Neither of the first two volumes is just "a picture book." While both are well illustrated, they both contain consider information about the He-219. (There is only a limited amount information on the He-219 due to the war.) Certainly these volumes contain more information on the history and development than anything you cite in support in your factually incorrect claims. The He-219 is also discussed in some of the other sources. You, however, dismiss everything that disagrees with your inaccurate views.

Remember, the thirty five year old volume you cited in support of your claimed figures for the He-219 is not a book on the He-219. By your own argument that makes the volume irrelevant, as the book is not just about the He-219. It really must be embarrassing to be think so unclearly.

Numerous volumes disagree with you on the He-219, including the ones I cited and the one Just Leo cited. Nevertheless, the best argument is to dismiss these facts.

You are just stubborn, unwilling to accept that the weight of knowledge disagree with your bizarre perspective.

Arguing with such foolishness is a waste of my time. All it does is demonstrate your flaws.

Deleted member 1487

As always, you ignore the substance. I made points beyond that of the He-219.

Various books I cite discuss the He-219 in them. That makes them relevant. These tomes offer far more substance than anything you have cited. The other books discuss other aspects of my argument. The ones you have ignored and/or misunderstood.

Neither of the first two volumes "a picture book." While both are well illustrated, they both contain consider information about the He-219. (There is only a limited amount information on the He-219 due to the war.) Certainly these volumes contain more information on the history and development than anything you cite in support in your factually incorrect claims.

The thirty five year old volume you cited in support of your figures is not even a book on the He-219. By your own argument, it would be irrelevant, as the book is not just about the He-219. It really must be embarrassing to be think so unclearly.

Numerous volumes disagree with you on the He-219, including the ones I cited and the one Just Leo cited. Nevertheless, the best argument is to dismiss these facts.

You are just stubborn, unwilling to accept that the weight of knowledge disagree with your bizarre perspective.

Arguing with such foolishness is a waste of my time. All it does is demonstrate your flaws.

Then you didn't read what I responded to Leo with, as I have his book and that book did not support his statement Brown said the He219 was underpowered and makes no mention of flying it with the radar gear. The numbers you cite for the He219 are correct for the clean version without radar, but with radar and all the other night flying equipment (including IFF, signal flares, and ventral gun trays) it hacks down top speed considerably.

These are the sources on the He219 that I have.

Regardless of performance and key problem is that the aircraft could not be developed any sooner and didn't enter production until October 1943 due to constant bombing of the RAF that destroyed production AND the designs multiple times. So it only comes much too late in limited numbers. They were far better off taking that surplus of resources and engines, perhaps some sent to the Italians too, and putting into Ju88C night fighters and in 1943 the newly modified Ju88G night fighter. Production is already well established in 1942 and it was more than capable of catching heavy bombers and mounting heavy armament to shoot them down. By the time the limited numbers of He219s show up they could have several hundred extra Ju88s in 1942-43 and greater production experience with that Ju88 models when the G-series becomes available rather than disrupting production and supply lines with a totally new aircraft that has a hard time getting into service due to the existing bombing in 1942-43.

PhilKearny

You are willfully ignorant.

If the He-177 is not developed, Heinkel has resources and motivation to advance the development of the He-219 (or its analogue). The cancellation of the He-177 would free up huge amount of Heinkel's resources. Further, they would need to make up for the loss of revenue. Both these would suggest that Heinkel would pour resources into the night fighter project. Duh.

You just can't grasp that simple idea. If one thing changes, so do other things. That renders the dates you cite irrelevant. If Heinkel puts more effort into the nightfighter, then the nightfigher be ready sooner and be made in greater numbers. Thus, the dates you cite would be irrelevant. Pretty basic reasoning, but not so basic that it escapes you.

As to the volumes you cite on He-219, they offer nothing that the ones I cite offer.

Then you didn't read what I responded to Leo with, as I have his book and that book did not support his statement Brown said the He219 was underpowered and makes no mention of flying it with the radar gear. The numbers you cite for the He219 are correct for the clean version without radar, but with radar and all the other night flying equipment (including IFF, signal flares, and ventral gun trays) it hacks down top speed considerably.

These are the sources on the He219 that I have.

Regardless of performance and key problem is that the aircraft could not be developed any sooner and didn't enter production until October 1943 due to constant bombing of the RAF that destroyed production AND the designs multiple times. So it only comes much too late in limited numbers. They were far better off taking that surplus of resources and engines, perhaps some sent to the Italians too, and putting into Ju88C night fighters and in 1943 the newly modified Ju88G night fighter. Production is already well established in 1942 and it was more than capable of catching heavy bombers and mounting heavy armament to shoot them down. By the time the limited numbers of He219s show up they could have several hundred extra Ju88s in 1942-43 and greater production experience with that Ju88 models when the G-series becomes available rather than disrupting production and supply lines with a totally new aircraft that has a hard time getting into service due to the existing bombing in 1942-43.

Deleted member 1487

You are willfully ignorant.

If the He-177 is not developed, Heinkel has resources and motivation to advance the development of the He-219 (or its analogue). The cancellation of the He-177 would free up huge amount of Heinkel's resources. Further, they would need to make up for the loss of revenue. Both these would suggest that Heinkel would pour resources into the night fighter project. Duh.

You just can't grasp that simple idea. If one thing changes, so do other things. That renders the dates you cite irrelevant. If Heinkel puts more effort into the nightfighter, then the nightfigher be ready sooner and be made in greater numbers. Thus, the dates you cite would be irrelevant. Pretty basic reasoning, but not so basic that it escapes you.

As to the volumes you cite on He-219, they offer nothing that the ones I cite offer.

How do you figure that? They already had a surplus of engineering resources and it takes time to advance a project, as it was they cut corners to speed things up from their 1942 start date (which was not funded by the RLM it was all out of pocket as a gamble to get a contract) and couldn't get it into production before October 1943 that was a freakin' record in terms of WW2 aircraft as it usually took 4 years from concept to production. But as it was out of pocket IOTL if the He177 is cancelled Heinkel probably doesn't have the money to invest as he was already pushing the He280 out of pocket and wasn't all that keen on the He219 project when it was initially rejected.

You are the one not grasping how technical development of aero-technology works its not a video game where you can throw resources and something and get around basic development time. Also you're not appreciating how all of this stuff was interconnected in terms of funding and what the process was IOTL.

PhilKearny

You really are willfully ignorant.

Again, I have fairly good idea how things work in terms of time, which you clearly lack. I also am aware of the original premise, which you ignore or don't undestand. I also know how a calendar works.

The premise is that the He-177 is cancelled after the prototype is built in 1939. That implies the cancellation occurs even before the original Heinkel night fighter proposal. So the whole timelime for night fighter may be moved forward by almost a year.

Heinkel was upset enough over losing the original night fighter proposal to fire the project's head, which is what you do if you aren't too keen. Wait, no. That's what's you do if you're very keen.

If they lost He-177 contract, Heinkel would even more keen on gaining the nightfighter proposal.

As to Heinkel having enough resources, that's not true--Heinkel had to send engineering work on the He-177 to France.

And I could go on but this is a waste of my time.

How do you figure that? They already had a surplus of engineering resources and it takes time to advance a project, as it was they cut corners to speed things up from their 1942 start date (which was not funded by the RLM it was all out of pocket as a gamble to get a contract) and couldn't get it into production before October 1943 that was a freakin' record in terms of WW2 aircraft as it usually took 4 years from concept to production. But as it was out of pocket IOTL if the He177 is cancelled Heinkel probably doesn't have the money to invest as he was already pushing the He280 out of pocket and wasn't all that keen on the He219 project when it was initially rejected.

You are the one not grasping how technical development of aero-technology works its not a video game where you can throw resources and something and get around basic development time. Also you're not appreciating how all of this stuff was interconnected in terms of funding and what the process was IOTL.

Deleted member 1487

You really are willfully ignorant.

Again, I have fairly good idea how things work in terms of time, which you clearly lack.

The premise is that the He-177 is cancelled after the prototype is built in 1939. The cancellation occurs even before the original Heinkel night fighter proposal. So the whole timelime is moved forward by almost a year.

Heinkel was upset enough over losing the original night fighter proposal to fire the project's head, which is what you do if you aren't too keen. Wait, no. That's what's you do if you're very keen.

If they lost He-177 contract, Heinkel would even more keen on gaining the nightfighter proposal.

As to Heinkel having enough resources, that's not true--Heinkel had to send engineering work on the He-177 to France.

And I could go on but this is a waste of my time.

Okay, so you have the OTL P.1055 project, as there was no need for a special night fighter until late 1941 when Kammhuber first expressed that need. It starts as a fast bomber that gets rejected as per OTL. The problem was that aircraft relied on the DB610 coupled engine of the He177, so is there an issue with that spec ITTL given that the He177 is cancelled due to problems with the He177 (mostly engine related)?

The P.1056 night fighter offered in 1941 was rejected by the RLM in 1941 after the unsolicited offer. The designer was fired by Heinkel. So the issue isn't Heinkel per se, though they will have less funds ITTL to play with without the He177 contract.

Again Heinkel tried to court the RLM with the updated P.1060 project that did end up becoming the He219, designed now around the DB603 instead of the coupled DB610. That development history, all funded out of pocket by Heinkel IOTL, allowed the He219 to be ready for production in 1943, ultimately taking the standard 4 years of development from concept to production, just in other variants. IOTL the problem was that the RLM refused it up through 1942 and Heinkel developed and build the first prototype out of pocket again until in November 1942 Kammhuber got permission from Hitler to order the design into production. Then it took until October 1943 to get it into production because Heinkel's facilities and design offices were getting repeatedly bombed out by the RAF.

I'm not seeing where you reduce development time. As it was Heinkel was funding the entire project out of pocket since 1940 and kept adapting it despite repeated rejections by the RLM. They finally gave in in late 1942. It had been in development since 1940 and had a prototype build in 1942 before getting a contract, which happened after the prototype was delivered for testing. Its not a question of having more resources devoted to the project, as they were following a pretty quick path as it was, even after changing engines and redesigning it to cope with the available engines. It wasn't until 1941 when they opted to design around the DB603 that that engine was even an option for designers.

So while you can insult me and say I don't have vision reading the history of the aircraft's development I don't see where you speed things up any more than IOTL. You still need time to design the aircraft, still have to contend with RAF bombing in 1942 repeatedly destroying the designs, then have to build and test a prototype and deal with the RAF bombing Heinkel production in 1943.

Going with the existing Ju88C and later G gets you a functional night fighter already in service in 1942, not just a design/prototype getting destroyed by RAF night bombing. By 1943 you'd already have several hundred extra Ju88s in service rather than a new design that can't be moved into production sooner even assuming best case scenario given that prototype production started in 1942 IOTL with Heinkel's devoted resources after yet another redesign in 1941 and bombings wrecking said designs in 1942, you'd have a mid-1943 production introduction, not service introduction you'd have to wait until late 1943 for major service introduction and by then its too late.


Who’s Biggest? The 100 Most Significant Figures in History

A data-driven ranking. Plus, have former TIME People of the Year been predictive?

Who’s bigger: Washington or Lincoln? Hitler or Napoleon? Charles Dickens or Jane Austen? That depends on how you look at it.

When we set out to rank the significance of historical figures, we decided to not approach the project the way historians might, through a principled assessment of their individual achievements. Instead, we evaluated each person by aggregating millions of traces of opinions into a computational data-centric analysis. We ranked historical figures just as Google ranks web pages, by integrating a diverse set of measurements about their reputation into a single consensus value.

Significance is related to fame but measures something different. Forgotten U.S. President Chester A. Arthur (who we rank as the 499 th most significant person in history) is more historically significant than young pop singer Justin Bieber (currently ranked 8633), even though he may have a less devoted following and lower contemporary name recognition. Historically significant figures leave statistical evidence of their presence behind, if one knows where to look for it, and we used several data sources to fuel our ranking algorithms, including Wikipedia, scanned books and Google n-grams.

To fairly compare contemporary figures like Britney Spears against the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, we adjusted for the fact that today’s stars will fade from living memory over the next several generations. Intuitively it is clear that Britney Spears’ mindshare will decline substantially over the next 100 years, as people who grew up hearing her are replaced by new generations. But Aristotle’s reputation will be much more stable because this transition occurred long ago. The reputation he has now is presumably destined to endure. By analyzing traces left in millions of scanned books, we can measure just how fast this decay occurs, and correct for it.

We don’t expect you will agree with everyone chosen for the top 100, or exactly where they are placed. But we trust you will agree that most selections are reasonable: a quarter of them are philosophers or major religious figures, plus eight scientists/inventors, thirteen giants in literature and music, and three of the greatest artists of all time. We have validated our results by comparing them against several standards: published rankings by historians, public polls, even in predicting the prices of autographs, paintings, and baseball cards. Since we analyzed the English Wikipedia, we admittedly measured the interests and judgments of primarily the Western, English-speaking community. Our algorithms also don’t include many women at the very top: Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603) [at number 13] is the top ranked woman in history according to our analysis. This is at least partially due to women being underrepresented in Wikipedia.

Each year since 1927, TIME Magazine has selected an official Person of the Year, recognizing an individual who “has done the most to influence the events of the year.” Our rankings provide a way to see how well these selections have stood up over time. Adolf Hitler [7] proves to be the most significant Person of the Year ever. Albert Einstein [19] was the most significant modern individual never selected for the annual honor, though TIME did name him Person of the Century in 1999. Elvis Presley [69] is the highest ranked figure that has been completely dissed: no author or artist has ever so been honored.

The least significant Person of the Year proves to be Harlow Curtice [224326], the president of General Motors for five years during the 1950s who increased capital spending in a time of recession, which helped spur a recovery of the American economy. Other obscure selections include Hugh Samuel “Iron Pants” Johnson [32927], who Franklin Roosevelt appointed to head the depression-era National Recovery Administration, and fired less than a year later. John Sirica [47053] was the District Court Judge who ordered President Nixon to turn over tape recordings in the Watergate Scandal. David Ho [66267] is credited with developing the combination therapy that provided the first effective treatment for AIDS. His contributions to human health arguably deserve a better significance rank than our algorithms gave him here.


At war with the U.S.

Run-ins with white settlers were becoming more regular by the turn of the century. Settlers wanted Indian land and their former slaves back.

In 1817, these conflicts escalated into the first of three wars against the United States. Future U.S. President Andrew Jackson invaded then-Spanish Florida, attacked several key locations, and pushed the Seminoles farther south into Florida

After passage of the Indian Removal Act in 1830, the U.S. government attempted to relocate Seminoles to Oklahoma, causing yet another war -- the Second Seminole War.

After defeating the U.S. in early battles of the Second Seminole War, Seminole leader Osceola was captured by the United States in Oct. 20, 1837, when U.S. troops said they wanted a truce to talk peace.

By May 8, 1858, when the United States declared an end to conflicts in the third war with the Seminoles, more than 3,000 of them had been moved west of the Mississippi River. That left roughly 200 to 300 Seminoles remaining in Florida, hidden in the swamps.

For the next two decades, little was seen of Florida Seminole. At least not until trading posts opened in late 19th century at Fort Lauderdale, Chokoloskee and other places, that's when some Seminoles began venturing out to trade.


Heinkel He 162 Volksjäger

Nazi Germany (1944)
Jet Fighter – 116

The Volksjäger Fighter colorized by Michael Jucan

The combined American, British and Soviet Air Forces began to take over the skies above Europe in the later part of the war. Germans were desperate to find a way to fight the combined Allied bomber raids that were slowly destroying German industry which was necessary for continuation of the war. A cheap and easy to build jet fighter was believed to be the solution to the Allied bombing raids. From these aspirations the Volksjäger, “The People’s Fighter,” project was born.

Emergence of the Volksjäger Concept

The men responsible for the creation of the Volksjäger idea and concept were civil engineers Hauptdienstleiter Dipl-Ing Karlo Otto Saur, who was also a member of the Nazi party, and Generaloberst Alfred Keller.

Otto Saur was quick to realize that by 1944 the Luftwaffe was a shadow of its former glory. This was most obvious for the fighter force, which was engaged in a desperate struggle with a more numerous and better equipped enemy. Otto Saur’s conclusion was that a cheap and easy to build jet fighter could tip the balance of power in Germany’s favor again. He was quick to present his idea to Hermann Göring, Reichsluftfahrtminister, the Reich’s Minister of Aviation, who immediately supported it.

Generaloberst Alfred Keller, who was in charge of the flying, training and sports association (Nationalsozialistisches Fliegerkorps – NSFK) also supported the Volksjäger idea. The NSFK organization was also involved in offering several courses, The Flying Hitler Youth (Flieger Hitlerjugend) on how to build model aircraft and glider flying training for schoolboys. In support of Otto Saur’s proposal, Alfred Keller came with his own proposal to use these young boys, with ages between 15 to 17, as pilots for the mass produced Volksjäger. In Keller’s opinion, all that was needed was some short training with gliders which would be supplemented with more training on the Volksjäger.

Many in the Luftwaffe command opposed this project and the idea of using young boys as fighter pilots against the numerous and well-equipped and trained Allied air forces. The greatest advocate against this project was Generalleutnant Adolf Galland, being supported by Willy Messerschmitt, chief designer of the famous Messerschmitt company, and Kurt Tank, the most well-known designer at Focke-Wulf. The most important reason behind this opposition was the fact that, towards the end of the war, Germany was lacking fuel, materials, pilots, production capacity and many other elements. They argued that all available resources should be directed to the development and production of the already existing Me 262 jet fighter.

In the years prior to the collapse of the Luftwaffe, such a concept would most likely never have gained any support from Luftwaffe officials. However, by 1944, the Germans were in a desperate need for a wonder weapon to turn the tides. As Hermann Göring was no longer in Hitler’s good graces, he was desperate to find a way to appease Hitler. The best way to do this was to somehow find a miraculous solution to salvage the Luftwaffe, stop the incessant Allied bombardment of Germany, and provide much-needed support to the beleaguered Wehrmacht. Through these psychological lens, Otto Saur’s and Alfred Keller’s proposals looked like an ideal solution. Despite the great opposition, Hermann Göring kept insisting that the Volksjäger development should begin as soon as possible. The Volksjäger would later be supported by Adolf Hitler and Albert Speer (the Minister of Armaments and War Production).

First Steps

In the search for a new low-altitude fighter, Oberst Siegfried Knemeyer was named responsible for the Volksjäger’s initial requirements. He was in charge of the Technical Equipment Office for flight development of the Ministry of Aviation (Reichsluftfahrtministerium, RLM). Siegfried Knemeyer was an experienced military pilot and engineer who participated in the test flights of many different experimental aircraft designs. From 1943 onward, he was part of Hermann Göring’s cabinet from where he actively supported the development of the new Me 262.

While the Me 262 jet fighter was superior to piston powered Allied planes, it was far from perfect. The most significant problem with the Me 262 was the poor performance at low altitude, where it was an easy prey for Allied fighters. This is also where Allied fighters and close support aircraft were very active and often attacked German airfields, supply trains and ground troops. The already existing Me 109 and Fw 190 were becoming outdated and insufficient by late 1944 standards. In order to effectively counter enemy planes at low altitude, a new design was needed according to Siegfried Knemeyer, who noted (Source: Robert F. He 162 Volksäger Units):

“… It became absolutely essential to develop a high-speed, single-seater fighter that had a sufficiently good performance which would enable it to take off when enemy aircraft were actually sighted. In addition, due to the bombing of our large airfields with long runways, these new fighters had to be able to take off in a very short distance and thus enable small landing grounds to be used. The mass production of such an aircraft had to be on such a scale as would enable the enemy to be engaged at any point and during the entire duration of their flight …… By limiting the endurance and the armament requirement for this new aircraft, the existing jet fighter (the Me 262) would have fulfilled the requirements. However, this aircraft had to be ruled out since it was not possible to produce the numbers that would have been required for combating these low-flying attacks and, in particular, because the provision of two power units per airframe was quite beyond the capacity of industry… “. Based on this, Siegfried Knemeyer gave a list of specifications which the new low-altitude fighter had to conform with:

  • This plane should be able to take off from runways less than 1970 ft (600 m) long.
  • It should be powered by a single jet engine, in order to lower the costs.
  • As the Jumo 004 engine could not be produced in sufficient numbers, another engine was needed. The new BMW 003 was recommended.
  • Maximum speed at sea level should be at least 465 mph (750 km/h).
  • The production process had to be as simple as possible without disturbing the production of the Me 262 and Ar 234.
  • The main building material should be wood. A larger number of furniture manufacturers and carpenters should be included in the production as they had the skill and experience in working with wood that would be needed.

Based on these requirements, the RLM placed an initial order for the new Volksjäger low-altitude jet fighter in July 1944. The first mockup needed to be ready by 1st October, 1944, and a fully operational prototype should have been ready by early December the same year. The main production was planned to begin in early 1945.

The Race for the Volksjäger

The first prototype, V1, built in late 1944. [worldwarphotos.net] For some time, the Volksjäger seemed like it would remain only a paper proposal, as little progress was made until September 1944. On 7th September, a high priority teleprint message arrived at the Heinkel company. This message was sent by Dipl-ing Karl Frydag, Heinkel’s General Director at the Ministry, but also the leader of the Main Committee for Aircraft Construction and an acquaintance of Otto Saur. The high priority message was addressed to Prof. Ernst Heinkel and his main engineer team. This illicit message contained information including not-yet-published RLM tender requirements for the new Volksjäger jet fighter.

As the official tender request was to be issued by RLM in only a few days, Ernst Heinkel and his team moved quickly to use the small time advantage they had over other possible competitors. The first thing Ernst Heinkel did was to give instructions to reuse the P 1073 paper project that was intended for an RLM request from July. P 1073 was, according to the original plans, to be powered by two HeS 011 or Jumo 004C turbojet engines. One engine was to be mounted on top of the fuselage behind the cockpit and the second one below, right under the cockpit. The maximum speed using the HeS 011 engines was estimated to be around 630 mph (1010 km/h) at 19700 ft (6000 m). P 1073’s wing was swept back at 35° with a “V” shaped rear tailplane. The armament would include two 1.18 in (30 mm) MK 108 and two MG 151/20 0.78in (20 mm) cannons.

Later, due to the new specifications for the Volksjäger, P 1073 was modified to be powered by a single BMW 003 engine. Other changes, such as increasing the dimensions, a new straight wing design and adding new rear twin tail fins. The name was changed to P 1073-15. Further modifications were conducted at the Rostock-Marienehe plant. These included a high unswept wing design, the engine mounted above the fuselage, an armament of only two MG 151/20 0.78 in (20 mm) cannons, a tricycle undercarriage and a weight around 2.5 t. The maximum speed at ground level was 500 mph (810 km/h). It was possible to increase the offensive armament with bombs and 1.18 in/30 mm cannons. The name was again changed to P 1073-18.

By 9th (or 8th, depending on the source) September 1944, other German aircraft manufacturers received the RLM requirements for the new Volksjäger project. According to these, the Volksjäger fighter had to be able to take off in less than 1640 ft (500 m). It had to be powered by one BMW 003 jet engine and the total weight must not must not exceed 4410 lbs (2000 kg). The maximum speed at sea level had to be at least 460 mph (750 km/h). The flight endurance at full thrust had to be at least 30 min. The main armament had to consist of either two MK 108 (with 80 to 100 rounds per gun) or two MG 151/20 (with 200-250 rounds per gun) cannons.

The main construction material would be wood with a smaller amount of steel used. Protection for the pilot, fuel tanks and the main gun ammunition was to be provided. However, since great attention was dedicated to the short take off distance, the manufacturers were allowed to reduce the armor and ammunition load if needed. First proposals from all interested aircraft manufacturers were to be ready in only a few days, as a draconically unrealistic deadline was set for the 14th (or 20th depending on the source) September.

Despite being planned to be put into mass production, only limited numbers of the A-1 version were ever built. [worldwarphotos.net] Besides Heinkel, which was “unofficially” familiar with the details of this tender a few days before its publication, others aircraft manufacturers participated and submitted their own proposal. The competitors included Arado (E 580), Blohm und Voss (P 211.02), Junkers (marked either as EF 123 or EF 124) and Focke-Wulf. Focke-Wulf actually presented two different proposals (Volksflitzer and Volksflugzeug). Others, like Fieseler and Siebel, lacked the manpower and production capacity to successfully participate in this tender. Messerschmitt did not participate in this competition as Willy Messerschmitt was against the Volksjäger concept from the beginning. He was a great opponent of this project, arguing that increasing the production rate of the Me 262 should have a greater priority and that the Volksjäger was a waste of time and materials which Germany was sorely lacking.

By the end of the competition period, all proposals were submitted to the RLM. After two days, a conference was held in Berlin with the representatives of all five companies, together with officials from the Luftwaffe and RLM. The Arado, Focke-Wulf and Junkers projects were immediately rejected. Even Heinkel’s original proposal came close to being rejected, as it would be complicated to build. It was judged that the best proposal was the Blohm und Voss P 221-02 project, as it was (at least on paper) easier to build and used a smaller quantity of duralumin. At this point, Heinkel representatives were trying to win the competition by arguing that, due to the cancelation of the He 177 and the He 219 programmes, they would have enough production capacity to manufacture the Volksjäger in great numbers. They also proposed to make the entire design far simpler for mass production.

In the following days, there were many difficult and exhausting discussions around the Heinkel and Blohm und Voss projects. There was a sharp debate between Heinkel Dipl-Ing. Francke and the RLM Generaldirektor Frydag which supported the Blohm und Voss project. These discussions caused some delays in making the final decision for the implementation of the Volksjäger project. At the same time, at the Heinkel factory at Schwechat near Vienna (EHAG – Ernst Heinkel AG), work began on calculations and drawings in preparation for the production of the first models of the Volksjäger, marked as the He 500.

The final discussion regarding the competition was held at Hitler residence in Rastenberg, in East Prussia. Hermann Göring enthusiastically and actively supported the He 500 without even considering the Blohm und Voss P 221-02 project. He also gained the support of Adolf Hitler and Albert Speer. Thus, in the end, the Heinkel project was chosen. This decision was also based on the experience that Heinkel had accumulated with the construction and development of jet technology (with the He 178 and He 280) but also due to the significant lobby that this company had.

Although Heinkel’s design won, there were requests for some alterations. For easier production and construction, the design of the tail, fuselage and the landing gear had to be simplified. As was originally planned, the first mockup was ready by 1st October 1944 and the first prototype was to be built by 10th December of the same year. The main production was to begin in January 1945 with 1000 planes per month, which would be increased to 2000 per month. These dates and numbers were, taking Germany’s economic and military situation into consideration, unrealistic and understandably never achieved.

According to Ernst Heinkel, the final designation for the new Volksjäger was meant to be He 500. However, the RLM officials, in the hope of somehow hiding its original purpose from Allied intelligence, gave it the designation “8-162”. In some sources, it is also called “Salamander”. This was actually a code name given for wooden component production companies. The He 162 is also sometimes called “Spatz” (Sparrow), but this name is, according to some sources, related to the He 162S training glider prototype.

Construction of the First Prototypes

The work on the final design was given to the engineers Siegfried Günter and Karl Schwärzler. A large design staff of some 370 men was at their disposal. The design work was carried out at the Heinkel workshop (at Schwechat Air Base) near Vienna. By 15th October, the first sketches and production tools were ready.

The Heinkel factory (in Vienna) was responsible for beginning the serial production of the He 162. In the hope of speeding up production, other factories were included along with many smaller companies. Each of these were to be responsible for producing certain parts and components of the He 162. When all necessary parts for the construction of the first prototype were built, they were to be transported to Vienna for the final assembly. Due to a lack of transport capability and insufficient quality of wooden parts (especially the wings), there were some delays.

Side view of the He 162. The cannon compartment’s wooden door is removed. [warbirdsresourcegroup.org] Despite the fact that wood was easier to work with, there were huge issues with the quality of the delivered parts. Some of the problems encountered were that the production procedures were often not carried out according to regulations, the glue used was of poor quality, sometimes parts would not fit together. There were situations in which large numbers of wooden parts were returned to the suppliers simply because they could not be used. There were also problems with the first prototype’s engine as it was damaged during the transport and had to be repaired. All the necessary parts arrived by 24th November and the assembly of the first He 162 prototype could begin.

The He 162 V1 prototype (serial number Wk-Nr 200001) was ready for testing by 1st December, 1944. The first series of prototypes had the “V” (Versuchmuster) designation. Later, starting from V3 and V4, the designation was changed to “M” (Muster – model). If it is taken into account that, from the first drawing to the first operational prototype, no more than two months had passed, this was an impressive feat. The V1 prototype was to be tested at Heidfeld but, due to some stability problems with the undercarriage, only limited ground test trials were held.

These problems were addressed by 6th December, when the He 162 made its first test flight piloted by Heinkel’s main test pilot, Flugkapitän Dipl-ing Gotthold Peter. The flight lasted around 20 minutes at speeds of 186 mph (300 km/h). During this flight, probably due to the poor quality of production, one of the three landing gear doors simply broke free and the pilot was forced to land. Beside that, the whole flight was considered successful, there were no other problems and the engine performed excellently.

At the same time, three more prototypes (V2, M3 and M4) were under construction to be used for future tests. The second prototype was transported to Heidfeld (arrived 7th December). During the production of the first series of prototypes, a problem with the wing construction was noted. The main issue was the use of poor quality glue, but at that time this problem was largely ignored.

The moment when a V1 prototype was lost, when the right aileron failed. Unfortunately, the pilot did not survive. [worldwarphotos.info] On 10th December, another flight was performed for the Luftwaffe military officials at Schwechat. Like in the previous flights, the pilot was Gotthold Peter. In the hope of impressing the gathered crowd, the pilot made a low pass (at 330 ft/100 m) at 456 mph (735 km/h). This flight was going well until the moment when a part of the wing and ailerons were torn off, which caused the pilot to lose control and crash to the ground. Despite having an onboard ejection seat, Peter failed to activate it (possibly due to high G-forces) and was killed in this accident.

The whole flight was captured on a film camera by one of the Luftwaffe officers. The film and the wreck were thoroughly examined by Heinkel engineers who immediately noticed a few things the wing parts were joined by using low quality glue, the poor aerodynamics of the wing design and the instability of the prototype lateral axis led to the tear off of the wing parts. As a result of this accident, the wing design was strengthened and the maximum flight speed was restricted to only 310 mph (500 km/h). Also, the size of the horizontal stabilizer was increased, the main fuel tanks were reduced in size and the wings’ connection to the main fuselage was reinforced. This accident did not have any negative impact on the continued development on this project which proceeded without interruption.

After this accident, other pilots were reluctant to fly on the He 162. Due to this, Ernst Heinkel was forced to offer a sum of 80,000 Reichsmarks for any pilots who were willing to test fly the He 162. A pilot who agreed to fly was Dipl.-Ing. Carl Francke, who was the technical director of EHAG. He made the first test flight with V2 (serial number Wk-Nr 200002) on 22nd December, 1944. Later that day, a second pilot, Fliegerstabsingineur Paul Bader, made more test flights. Flight trials with the second prototype were carried out without much problems. The V2 prototype was used for testing different wing designs and different weapon installations (two 1.18 in/30 mm Mk 108 cannons). After this, V2 would be used mostly for ground examinations, conversions, equipment testing and for attempts to simplify the overall design in order to ease production.

The third prototype was ready by 20th December, when it was tested by Paul Bader at Heidfeld. While the flight went on without many problems, the pilot noted the poor front ground visibility and vibrations during takeoff and landing. In order to improve the He 162’s wing design, the experienced Dr Alexander Lippisch (who worked on the Me 163) was contacted and included in the project. His proposal for improving the He 162’s stability was to fit small “Ohren” (ears) to the wingtips. As these were later implemented on all produced He 162, they were generally known as the ‘Lippisch ears’.

The M3 and M4 prototypes were the first fighters to be equipped with these wingtips. These two models had strengthened and redesigned wing construction with thicker plywood covering, also to shift the centre of gravity, extra weight was added to the plane’s nose. These modifications improved the He 162’s overall performance and stability significantly. The M3 improved prototype was tested in late February 1945 when it managed to reach an incredible speed of 546 mph (880 km/h). The M4 prototype was ready by the end of 1944 but, due to some engine problems, the first flight was only possible at the beginning of 1945. The first flight tests were carried by Dipl-Ing Schuck on 16th January, 1945. As the M3 and M4 wing design and shape proved satisfactory, they were chosen to be used for the upcoming production of the first He 162A combat operational variant.

The M5 prototype was built but it was never used operationally nor did it ever fly. The M6 prototype, which was intended to be used as base for the He 162A-1 production model, made its first test flight on 23rd January, 1945. The M7 (the base for the He 162A-2) was used for vibration tests and trialing the braking parachute. The M8 was the first to be equipped with two MG 151/20 cannons (120 rounds of ammunition per gun). The M9 and M10 were intended as two seat trainer aircraft versions but none were built. The M11 and M12 were powered by the much stronger Jumo 004D Orkan turbojet engine. These were to be used as base for the He 162A-8. The M13 moniker was never assigned to any prototype due to the belief that this number was unlucky. The prototype models M14 to M17 were never built. The M18 and M19 were powered by the new BMW 003E-1 jet engine which was intended to be used for the He 162A-2 production model. The M20 was used for testing different and simpler undercarriage designs. The M21 and M22 were used for main weapon testing. The M23 and M24 were used for installation of new wing root filters and for handling flight tests.

These prototypes were extensively tested and examined in detail from 22nd January to 12th February. In this period, over 200 test flights were carried out. Not all test flights were successful and without accidents. On 24th February, M20 was damaged during landing due to undercarriage malfunction. The next day, while testing the M3, there was a malfunction that led the pilot losing control of the aircraft. He managed to get out but his parachute did not fully extend, leading to his demise. At the beginning of May, one more prototype was lost in an accident. In total, there were more than 30 prototypes built. It is interesting that, even before the testing of the prototypes was completed, preparations for production of the He 162 were already underway.

He 162 A-1 and A-2

Despite the original plans requiring the start of the production in early 1945, this was never achieved. Due to the chaos in Germany at that time, there were many delays with the arrival of the necessary parts. There were shortages of nose wheels, rudders, interior equipment, weapons parts, poor quality glue and many others. For example, at Rostock, there were more than 139 partly built fuselages which could not be completed due to a lack of parts. There was also a problem with the large number of wings and tails built that were defectuous and unusable. A generalized lack of fuel, transport vehicles and electricity, Allied bombing raids and the use of slave labour also negatively influenced the overall production. Around ten pre-series He 162A-0 (with different prototype numbers) were built and stationed at Schwechat to be used for more testing needed in order to eliminate more problems.

The Soviets flight tested some captured examples of the He 162, but their overall performance proved to be poor. [airpages.ru] The production of the first series of operational aircraft was delayed and began only at the end of March 1945. The first production series were marked He 162 A-1 and A-2. There are few visual differences between these two models. The only major difference was the armament. The A-1 was equipped with two 1.18 in (30 mm) cannons and the A-2 with two 0.78 in (20 mm) cannons. As the production of 1.18 in (30 mm) cannons was halted due to Allied bombing and the Soviets capturing the production factories, the few remaining cannons were to be allocated to the Me 262. The production of the A-1 was stopped and the exact number of manufactured aircraft is unknown. Due the lack of 1.18 in (30 mm) cannons, the He 162 manufacturers were forced to use the lighter and weaker 0.78 in (20 mm) caliber weapons.

A number of serially produced A-2 aircraft were not used for troop trials, but were instead sent to test centres for future modifications and testing. A small number would eventually reach the German troops in April. While the production of the A-2 would go on until the war’s end, the total number of produced aircraft is unknown.

The He 162 Design

He 162 top view [warbirdsresourcegroup.org] The He 162 was designed as a high-wing jet fighter with a simple fuselage with clean lines, tricycle retracting landing gear and built using mixed construction. The simple fuselage was built by using a cheap and light metal alloy (duralumin – a combination of aluminium and copper) with a plywood nose and (one-piece) wooden wings.

The fuselage was a semi-monocoque design covered with duralumin. The front part of the fuselage was egg-shaped and had good aerodynamic properties. The nose was made of plywood and was fixed to the fuselage by using bolts. The middle top part of the fuselage was flat and the engine was connected to it. The wood was also used for the undercarriage doors.

The wings were made out of wood and connected to the central fuselage by using four bolts. In order to ease production, the wings were built in one piece. The flaps and ailerons were built using a wood frame which was covered with plywood. The flaps were controlled by using a hydraulic system while the rods were controlled with wire. To help with the stability at the end of the wing, two wingtips (one on each side) were added. These were angled at 55° downwards and made of duralumin. The two-part rear tail was made of metal and was connected to the end cone of the fuselage. The tail rudders were controlled using wires and rods.

The He 162 used a tricycle landing gear design, with one wheel at the front and two more located in the centre of the fuselage. The landing gear was hydraulically lowered and raised. The dimensions of the front nose wheel were 500𴡩 mm and no brake system was provided for it. Interesting to note is that the front nose wheel, when retracting, partly reached into the lower part of the front cockpit. A small window was provided for the pilot so that he could see if it was fully operational. The two central landing wheels were larger, 600𴢠 mm. Both the front and the rear landing wheels retracted to the rear. To help with landings, hydro-pneumatic dampers were provided.

The plexi-glass cockpit was made of two parts, the front windshield and the rear hinging canopy which were screwed into the inner bar frame. In order to make the whole construction simple as possible the cockpit was not pressurized. For better ventilation on the left side a small round ventilation window was installed. The pilot cockpit was more or less a standard German design but much simpler. It provided the pilot with good all-around view of the surroundings, but there were some complaints by some pilots for poor front ground view.

The control panel was made of wood, on which the necessary instruments were placed. Only a few were provided for the pilot and these included the speed indicator, panel lights, turn and bank indicator, rate of climb, FK 38 magnetic compass, temperature indicator, AFN-2 display, oil and fuel pressure gauge, fuel level gauge, chronometer, ammunition counters and engine tachometer. The fighter controls were placed as standard in front of the pilot. On the pilot’s left-side, the fuel valve, flap controls, landing gear control, throttle lever and trimming control were located. On the opposite side was placed the radio system (FuG 25A). The pilot seat was of a simple design but equipped with Heinkel’s ejection system with a parachute. The He 162 was one of the first German aircraft to be equipped with an ejection seat as standard equipment. The cockpit was separated from the rest of the plane by a sloped metal plate. This plate was installed in order to provide the pilot some protection in case of emergency (like fuel tank fire etc.). Behind this plate were the oxygen supply tanks with a 3 l capacity.

The engine chosen for the He 162 A-2 was the BMW 003E-1/2 turbojet (in some sources the A version was used). The engine was fixed in a nacelle placed above the central fuselage. The engine consisted of a seven-stage axial compressor, injection nozzle, annular combustion chamber and one single-stage axial turbine equipped with sheet metal heat-resistant blades which were air-cooled. The exhaust nozzle was controlled by an adjustable needle which could be mechanically moved into four positions: Position A for idle, S for start, F for flying at altitudes lower than 26.200 ft (8.000 m) and M for flying at altitudes above 26.200 ft (8.000 m). The BMW 003E-1/2 turbojet could achieve maximum thrust of 1.800 lbs (800 kg).

One He 162 was put on display in London after the war. It still had German markings on it. [aviation-history.com] When flying at a speed of 500 mph (800 km/h) at 36.100 ft (11.000 m), the maximum thrust would fall down to only 740 lbs/340 kg. To start the engine, a small Riedel piston engine (9.86 hp) was used. This engine could be started either by using an electric starter motor or manually with a ring-pull. The He 162 engine was 11 ft (3.6 m) long with a diameter of 2.3 ft (69 cm) and a weight of 1.375 lbs (624 kg). The estimated life cycle of the engine was only 50 hours. As the engine was positioned above the fuselage, in order to avoid any damage caused by exhaust gasses, a steel plate was placed under the jet nozzle. The position of the engine also means it was easier to mount and repair. It was also easier to replace it with a new one.

The fuel tank was positioned in the middle of the fuselage. In order to save weight and to ease the production, a rubber fuel tank was used. The main fuel tank had a capacity of 695 l and there were also two smaller 175 l tanks located in the wings. For takeoff, up to two smaller auxiliary Ri 502 rocket engines could be installed. They would be located in the lower rear part of the fuselage.

The He 162’s original weapon system consisted of two MK 108 cannons, but the most built version was equipped with weaker MG 151/20 cannons. The two cannons were placed in the lower front part of the fuselage. The main gun’s ammunition was stored behind the pilot, with 120 rounds for each gun. In order for the ground support crews to have access to the gun and ammunition, wooden door panels were provided. For the gunsight, the Revi 16G or 16B models were used. There was also a gyroscopic EZ 42 gunsight tested on one He 162, but this was never adopted for service.

Other Versions and Prototypes

Despite the improvements done to the main production versions, there were still room for enhancements and modifications of the He 162. Most efforts were devoted to the installation of stronger engines and various aerodynamic improvements in order to achieve the highest speed possible. There were also plans to make the He 162 much cheaper and easier to produce. Different armament loads were also tested or proposed. Most of these proposals remained on paper only, but some received limited testing.

The first in line of the intended improved He 162 was the A-3 version. This was meant to be armed with 1.18 in (30 mm) MK 103 or MK 108 cannons (depending on the source) located in a redesigned front nose, but it is unclear if any were ever built. Later, an identically armed version (A-6) with a redesigned and longer fuselage (30 ft/9.2 m) was proposed but, like the previous version, none were probably built.

In order to increase the He 162’s maximum speed, it was intended to install the Jumo 004D “Orkan” (2.866 lbs/1.050 kg of thrust) engine to replace the standard jet engine used. The new engines were to be transported to Schwechat and tested there on fully operational prototypes. The whole process was too slow, and only as late as March 1945 were the few prototypes almost finished, but due to the war’s end, none were ever fully completed or tested. This modification is known under the name He 162 A-8. The A-9 (in some sources marked as He 162E) was to be powered by one BMW 003R engine, supported by a second BMW 718 rocket engine for extra power. The engines were tested but they were never installed on any He 162. While Heinkel conceived up to 14 different proposals for the “A” version, beyond those mentioned above, almost nothing is known about the others.

Note that the following designations (B, C and D) were never found in any EHAG official documentation and are not known to have been used by the Germans. This article will use them for the sake of simplicity only. (Source: Miroslav B. and Bily B.)

Despite the fact that the He 162 was designed to be simple and easy to build, the engine was still relatively difficult to produce in great numbers. In hope to increase the number of engines being built, the Germans began testing the less demanding technology of pulse jet engines (used on the V-1 flying bomb). The first proposed pulse jet engine to be mounted on the He 162 (generally known as He 162B) was the Argus As 004 (with 1,102 lbs/500 kg of thrust). This was followed by a second proposal to mount two Argus As 014 (each with 739 lbs/335 kg of thrust) pulse jet engines. The single engine version is named, in some modern sources, as B-2 and the two engine version as B-1. None were ever built and tested, possibly because the pulse jet was considered inferior to jet engines.

Two different wing configurations proposed, often incorrectly marked as the “D” and ”C” versions. [airvectors.net] There were many experiments with different wing designs and shapes in order to improve the flying performance and ease production. Two similar designs were based on all-metal swept wings. The first (today called the He 162C) had a back swept wing design with the second half of the wings bent down at a sharp angle. The second (often nowadays referred to as the He 162D) had an unusual forward swept wing design. Both of these models were to be powered by one Heinkel-Hirth 011A turbojet engine (2,866 lbs/1,300 kg of thrust). Both models also had different rear tail designs. The maximum estimated top speed with this engine was up to 620 mph (1000 km/h). There were also other proposed wing designs but, beside these two, none seem to have been tested. Only a few incomplete prototypes were built and they were captured by the advancing Allied forces by the end of the war.

In autumn of 1944, it was suggested to use the He 162 for the German “Mistel 5” weapon projects. This configuration would consisted on one unmanned Arado E 337a glide bomb that would be guided by an He 162 connected on top of it. As the Arado E 337a was never built, this project remain on paper only.

At the end of January, there was a proposal to modify a few He 162 to be used as “Behelfs-Aufklarer”, in essence improvised reconnaissance planes, but this was never implemented.

The Volksjäger Training Versions

As the Volksjäger project got a green light for its implementation and orders of planned production in the thousands, a solution on how to train such large numbers of new pilots was needed. One proposal was to begin training with gliders (including a glider version of the He 162) and, after a short period of time, the pilot (usually from the Hitler Youth) would learn to fly on the training versions of the He 162. The glider version was named He 162 S “Spatz” (Sparrow). According to other sources (M.Balous and M.Bily), the “S” stands for Segelflugzeug (glider).

These gliders had to be designed and built to emulate the He 162’s takeoff and landing properties as much as possible. In order to stay in the air, the gliders were to be connected to a 1 km long cable which was attached to a 150 hp motorized winch. The gliders were to have two seats, one for the future pilot and one for the instructor. One prototype was flight tested in late March 1945 by Ing Hasse. Even the famous German woman test pilot Hanna Reitsch made at least one flight in it. The He 162 S was very similar to the original He 162, with some modifications like larger wings and fixed landing gears. The choice for using gliders as replacement for training planes was based on the general lack of fuel. Around ten of these gliders were ordered and, if testing showed good results, some 200 were meant to be built. But, due to the bad economical situation in Germany at the time, only a few were ever built at Schönhage (Hannover).

The second training aircraft was a fully powered two seat trainer version. There is no official military marking or name for this version, but today it is often known as the He 162 Doppelsitzer (two seater). This version was to be powered by a BMW 003E-1 or E-2 engine. It was to have a second seat for the instructor placed behind the main cockpit. In order to make more room in the unmodified He 162 fuselage, the gun, ammunition and oxygen tanks had to be removed. The production of this version was planned to begin by the end of 1944 and was to be built by DLH (Deutsche Lufthansa) at Oranienburg. Only one incomplete prototype may have ever been constructed.

To help the training of new pilots at the Luftwaffe test center (Rechlin), a simulator model was built. It had the exact same cockpit like an operational He 162 with all instruments. Its primary purpose was to be used for combat and fire simulator training.

Main Armament Proposal

As already stated, the 0.78 in (20 mm) cannons were, by 1944/45 war standards, simply inadequate and the lack of stronger 1.18 in (30 mm) cannons forced the Germans to search for different (somewhat unconventional) weapons for the He 162.

To increase the offensive armament, the 2.2 in (55 mm) R4M air-to-air rocket was proposed to be installed under the He 162’s wings. Another proposal was to arm the He 162 with the SG 118 Rohrblocktrommel weapon system which consisted of three 1.18 in (30 mm) barrels (connected in a circle), each armed with 7 rounds. The last proposal was to use the 3.14 in (8 cm) Panzerblitz missiles. There were planned to use the EZ 42 gyroscopic gun sight on the He 162, but the single prototype was destroyed in an Allied bombing raid. If any of these proposals were ever been implemented or allocated a version name is unknown but very unlikely.

Production

The Germans were forced to relocate some production facilities deep underground. The Volksjäger was produced in one such underground production base at Hinterbrühl, Austria. Colorized by Michael Jucan [aviation-history.com] It was hoped by the Luftwaffe military officials that the He 162 would be built in great numbers. They counted on the fact that, by using cheap materials (mostly wood) and by employing many smaller subcontractors (woodworkers and furniture manufactures), the overall costs and time necessary for the production would be reduced.

Several factories were responsible for the production of the He 162 at Heinkel-Nord in Rostock-Marienehe, Heinkel-Sud, Hinterbühl (underground factory), Vienna-Schwechat (prototype production) and Mittelwerke (Nordhausen). In order to increase the production, Heinkel and Junkers made an agreement to use the vast Junkers production capacities. Junkers would be responsible for the production of the majority of the new He 162 planes at Bernburg. Also, a large number of smaller subcontractors were to be included, like EHAG Walldwerk or Pütnitz. The main engine suppliers were Spandau and Zühlsdorf. The armament was to be provided by Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabrik at Posnan. The wooden elements would be made at Erfurt, Orla and Stuttgart-Esslingen (these were also building components for the Me 163 and Ta 154). Some 750 man-hours were needed for the He 162, together with 300 man-hours for the engine production. Due to slow production, Hitler gave an order on 27th March, 1945 for the SS to take over the whole Volksjäger project. However, this had only limited (if any) effect on the speed of production.

As it was only built during the last month of the war, when confusion and chaos were ever-present in almost all spheres of political or military life in Nazi Germany, exact information about how many aircraft of this type were built is impossible to find. Depending on the sources, the total production was in the range of 116 to more than 200. According to different Authors: C. Chan (240), D. Mondey (116), F. Crosby (200), A. Ludeke (270), D. Nešić (120). According to the German General Staff Department 6 (Generalstab Abteilung 6), the total number of He 162 built was 116 aircraft. After the war, around many airfields, some 100 He 162 in different conditions were found. Additional 800 aircraft were found in different stages of factory assembly, which also complicates determining the exact number of produced He 162.

On 7th April, 1945 Hitler gave orders to stop any further development and production of the He 162 in favor of the Me 262 and Arado 234. It is hard to say for sure, but as the He 162 was produced until the end of the war, this order seems to never have been fully implemented.

Operational Service

Lineup of Volksjäger captured by the British at Leck in May 1945 [worldwarphotos.info] The delivery of He 162 fighters to Luftwaffe front units was limited due to many reasons, including slow production, lack of fuel and spare parts and the Allied advance, but eventually, a few units equipped with this aircraft would be formed.

The first operational unit to be equipped with the new He 162 was Erprobungskommando 162 located at Rechlin-Roggenthin. In April, due to the rapid Allied advance, the unit had to reposition near Munich. This was actually a test unit and, for this purpose, a number of the most experienced German pilots (some of them having experience in flying jet aircraft) were allocated to this unit. Once these pilots had gained enough experience flying the He 162, they were to be used as base for forming the first operational unit, 1./JG 80. Immediately after the start of production, a large training process at the NSFK gliding school began. As there was only one He 162 S glider aircraft available, other simpler gliders (like the DFS SG 38 Schulgleiter) had to be used as a temporary solution. The training process did not go the way the Luftwaffe Officials hoped it would go. It was too slow and, when the first group of new pilots was tested on the Arado Ar 96B (trainer version), the results were disappointing. At this point, the plan to use Hitlerjugend members as He 162 pilots was discarded, which was somewhat expected. The experiment with the young and inexperienced pilots proves that only the most experienced pilots could successfully fly the He 162. Beside pilot training, at the same time, the training of ground support staff was carried out at Fliegertechische-Schule 6 in Neumarkt and Wiedenberg.

In order to form the first operational combat unit with the He 162, an already-experienced unit would be needed. For this purpose, Jagdgeschwader 1 “Oseau” (JG 1) was chosen. It was commanded by Oberst Herbert Ihlefeld and it was equipped mostly with Fw 190 aircraft. On 8th February, 1945, the first orders were given by General der Jagdflieger (General of Fighters) Oberst Gordon Gollob to the 2nd and 3rd Staffels (first Gruppe JG 1) commanders to prepare their pilots to be moved to the Parchim Airbase near Rostock. Once there, the first flight training with the new He 162 was to be carried out. In late February, a group of 10 pilots (from 2nd Staffel) was moved to Vienna for more training. For pilot training, two prototype aircraft were used, as the production of operational “A” variant was slow. Despite being experienced pilots, there were some accidents caused either by pilot errors or due to some mechanical faults. The He 162 M8 was lost due to engine failure on 12th March, but the pilot survived. Only two days later, one pilot was killed when he made a mistake during landing. As there were no other He 162 aircraft available, this group was forced to return to Parchim Airfield. In late March 1945, around 10 pilots of the I./JG 1 (first Gruppe) were moved to the Marienehe factory (near Rostock). They were supplied with a number of He 162 that where previously used by the mechanics and test pilots of this factory. Once the handover was completed, the group with the He 162 returned to its original base of operation.

The RLM’s next plan was to begin re-equipping II./JG 1 with the He 162 as soon as possible. The unit was moved to Rostock at the end of March 1945, where the training should have begun. Other units were expected to be formed (I and II./JG 400, III./JG 1, JG 27 and JG 77), but nothing came of this. In May 1945, a Volksstume Jagdeschwader (in essence, an improvised militia unit) was to be formed at the Sagan-Küpper airfield by using mostly volunteer pilots. However, Allied occupation of this airfield prevented the implementation of this proposal. The only unit beside JG 1 to be supplied (in limited numbers) with He 162 was I.EJG 2 (Ergänzungsjagdgeschwader, auxiliary fighter training unit), but these were probably never used operationally.

By the end of March, JG 1 was supplied with around 58 operational He 162A-2 aircraft with some 25 more on the way. At the same time, I./JG1 was moved to Ludwigslust, where it was supposed to be supplied with new He 162 aircraft. Due to the rapid Allied advance, the unit was moved in April to the Schleswig-Holstein region (Leck airfield), near the Danish border. This unit had orders to defend Berlin from Allied bombers coming from over the North Sea. The I./JG1 was to be ready for operational service by 20th April. The first combat loss happened on 19th April, when one He 162 was shot down after a take-off by an American P-47 Thunderbolt. By the end of April, II./JG 1 was moved quickly to the Leck airfield to join the first Gruppe.

He 162 side view [worldwarphotos.info] The first operational combat mission of I./JG1 was to attack an RAF front airfield on 20th April. While on their way, the He 162’s were intercepted by a group of Hawker Tempests (3 Sqn. RAF). In this engagement, only one He 162 was shot down and the pilot managed to survive without any injuries. At the same time, one P-51 Mustang scout pilot (12th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron) reported to have shot down one He 162, but this was never officially confirmed.

The He 162’s first allegedly air victory (and possibly the only one) was achieved by Lt. Rudolf Schmitt from I./JG 1, when he shot down a British fighter. However, this fighter was later claimed to have been shot down by German ground AA fire. While Lt. Rudolf Schmitt may not have made the first air victory, he did successfully manage to use the ejection seat in a combat zone. Due to the Allied advance, on 5th May, 1945, JG 1 received orders to stop any further action and to destroy all operational aircraft. For some reason, the order was later recalled. The Leck airfield would be captured by British forces on the 8th, which ended the He 162’s short operational combat story.

Precise information on the He 162’s combat or deployment is hard to find mostly due the chaotic state in Germany at that time. According to some authors, like Francus G., none were ever used in combat.

Japan’s military attache, in early 1945, was interested in acquiring the license production of the He 162. After a short negotiation, the Germans gave permission for license production. But there was a problem of how to transport or send the necessary documents and sketches from Germany to distant Japan. The only solution was to use radio by converting the sketches into numerical code. Unsurprisingly, this did not work well and only limited information was send before the end of the war in Europe. Due to this reason, Japan never received the complete He 162 sketches.

In Allied Hands

As the British forces captured Leck airfield, they acquired a number of fully operational He 162s. Some 11 planes were selected by the British Technical Intelligence Team to be transported to the UK. Once there, all were sent to the Farnborough airfield, which was the headquarters of the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE). The He 162 aircraft were thoroughly examined and divided into groups either for part analysis or for flight testing. On 9th November, 1945, while flying an He 162 (AM61) at the Exhibition of German Aircraft at Farnborough, the pilot Robert A.M. lost his life in an accident.

One of the tested He 162 (marked AM 59 by the British) would be donated to the Canadian Museum in Ottawa together with another one received later that year. Later, two were given to British museums, one to the Imperial War Museum and the second to the RAF Hendon Museum. One would be given to France, possibly either AM 63 or AM 66.

The British also supplied the American with some He 162 captured at the Leck airfield. The Americans also managed to capture some abandoned He 162s across Germany. Some would be tested at the Wright and Freeman Field research centre. One He 162 was even kept in good flight condition up to 1946. This aircraft is today privately owned by the Planes of Fame Museum in California.

The French received or captured (it is not known precisely) five He 162, of which two were airworthy. These two were tested, but one was damaged during landing and the second was lost in May 1948 with the loss of the pilot’s life. One He 162 is preserved and can be seen at the Paris Aviation Museum.

During their advance through Germany, the Soviets managed to capture about seven planes, two of which were airworthy. These would be tested and and analyzed in great details. As the Soviets lacked any advanced jet technology at that time, adopting German captured technology looked like a logical step. Most interesting for the Soviets were the Jumo 004 and the BMW 003 jet engines that would be, in later years, copied and produced in some numbers. There were also some consideration from the Soviet military to copy and produce some of the German jet aircraft, including the He 162. One He 162, with the fuselage marking 02, was tested by the Soviet Flight Research Institute (near Moscow). The second, marked 01, was tested at the Central Aero-hydrodynamics Institute. He 162 02 would be flight tested on several flights in 1946. The results of these tests were disappointing for the Soviets and a decision was made not to further consider them for service, and they did not have any influence on the later Soviet aviation development.

Conclusion

The idea for the He 162 was born out of a mix of desperation, chaos and hope for some miraculous wonder weapons that could turn the air war’s tide to the German side again. It was designed to be cheap and built in great numbers. The impressive fact is that it was designed and built in only a few months, but, on the other hand, it was built in too small numbers, the engines used were often of poor quality and there was a lack of trained pilots, which, along with other problems, meant that the He 162 did not have any major impact on the war itself or on post war jet aircraft development. In the end, it was not the ‘Wunderwaffe’ that the designers hoped for, but it was still impressive, at least because of the speed with which it was designed and built.

Variants

As only a small number of He 162 were built, there were very few operational versions. Beside the prototype series, only the “A” version was built in some numbers.

  • He 162 V– Prototype series
  • He 162 A-0– Around 10 pre-production aircraft built used for testing

Main production version

  • He 162A-1 – Version equipped with two MK 108 cannons, a few were possibly built
  • He 162A-2 – The main production variant armed with two MG 151/20 cannons

Training versions

  • He 162S – Two seat glider trainer version, a few built
  • He 162 Doppelsitzer – Two seat powered trainer version, only one incomplete aircraft built

Experimental prototypes based on “A” versions

  • He 162A-3 – Proposed version armed with two MK 103 or 108 cannons
  • He 162A-6 – Proposed version with redesigned and longer fuselage armed with two MK 108 cannons
  • He 162A-8 – Version equipped with the Jumo 004D jet engine, only a few incomplete prototypes built
  • He 162A-9 – The A-9 was to be powered by one BMW 003R engine and supported by a second BMW 718 rocket engine. None built
  • He 162A Mistel 5 – Paper project, a combination of an He 162 and one Arado E 337 glide bomb.
  • He 162 “Behelfs-Aufklarer” – Proposed version to be built in limited numbers as reconnaissance planes. It was never implemented and remained a proposal only.

Note that the B, C and D designations were not official and are used in this article only for the sake of simplicity.

  • He 162B – Proposed version equipped with a pulsejet engine (similar to the V-1 flying bomb engine)
    • He 162B-1 – two engine version
    • He 162B-2 – single engine version

    Operators

    • Nazi Germany – A few hundred built, but only small numbers were allocated to front units and saw limited combat action.
    • United Kingdom – Captured a number of operational He 162, 11 would be transported and tested in the UK.
    • United States – Received a small number of He 162 from the British but also captured some in Germany.
    • France – Received or captured at least five He 162 aircraft.
    • USSR – Captured seven completed He 162 which were tested after the war.
    • Japan – Military officials tried to acquire the license for production of the He 162 but the war’s end prevented this.

    Specifications (Heinkel He 162 A-2)

    Gallery

    Illustrations by Ed Jackson artbyedo.com

    Heinkel He 162 Volksjäger – 20222 Heinkel He 162 A-1 Volksjäger – 120235 Heinkel He 162 A-2 Volksjäger – 120077 “Nervenklau” Heinkel He 162 A-2 Volksjäger – wearing Soviet colors as it undergoes testing after capture – Spring 1946


    26 U.S. Code § 170 - Charitable, etc., contributions and gifts

    If the aggregate amount of contributions described in clause (i) exceeds the limitation of clause (i), such excess shall be treated (in a manner consistent with the rules of subsection (d)(1)) as a (E) Contributions of qualified conservation contributions

    Any qualified conservation contribution (as defined in subsection (h)(1)) shall be allowed to the extent the aggregate of such contributions does not exceed the excess of 50 percent of the taxpayer’s (ii) Carryover

    If the aggregate amount of contributions described in clause (i) exceeds the limitation of clause (i), such excess shall be treated (in a manner consistent with the rules of subsection (d)(1)) as a (iii) Coordination with other subparagraphs

    For purposes of applying this subsection and subsection (d)(1), contributions described in clause (i) shall not be treated as described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) and such subparagraphs shall apply without regard to such contributions.

    If the individual is a qualified farmer or rancher for the taxable year for which the contribution is made, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting “100 percent” for “50 percent”.

    Subclause (I) shall not apply to any contribution of property made after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph which is used in agriculture or livestock production (or available for such production) unless such contribution is subject to a restriction that such property remain available for such production. This subparagraph shall be applied separately with respect to property to which subclause (I) does not apply by reason of the preceding sentence prior to its application to property to which subclause (I) does apply.

    For purposes of clause (iv), the term “qualified farmer or rancher” means a taxpayer whose gross income from the trade or business of farming (within the meaning of section 2032A(e)(5)) is greater than 50 percent of the taxpayer’s gross income for the taxable year.

    In the case of any contribution of cash to an organization described in subparagraph (A), the total amount of such contributions which may be taken into account under subsection (a) for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2017 , and before January 1, 2026 , shall not exceed 60 percent of the taxpayer’s (ii) Carryover

    If the aggregate amount of contributions described in clause (i) exceeds the applicable limitation under clause (i) for any taxable year described in such clause, such excess shall be treated (in a manner consistent with the rules of subsection (d)(1)) as a (iii) Coordination with subparagraphs (A) and (B)

    Contributions taken into account under this subparagraph shall not be taken into account under subparagraph (A).

    For each taxable year described in clause (i), and each taxable year to which any contribution under this subparagraph is carried over under clause (ii), subparagraph (A) shall be applied by reducing (but not below zero) the contribution limitation allowed for the taxable year under such subparagraph by the aggregate contributions allowed under this subparagraph for such taxable year, and subparagraph (B) shall be applied by treating any reference to subparagraph (A) as a reference to both subparagraph (A) and this subparagraph.

    For purposes of this section, the term “section 172).

    The total deductions under subsection (a) for any taxable year (other than for contributions to which subparagraph (B) or (C) applies) shall not exceed 10 percent of the taxpayer’s taxable income.

    If the aggregate amount of contributions described in clause (i) exceeds the limitation of clause (i), such excess shall be treated (in a manner consistent with the rules of subsection (d)(2)) as a (C) Qualified conservation contributions by certain Native Corporations

    If the aggregate amount of contributions described in clause (i) exceeds the limitation of clause (i), such excess shall be treated (in a manner consistent with the rules of subsection (d)(2)) as a (iii) Native Corporation

    For purposes of this subparagraph, the term “Native Corporation” has the meaning given such term by section 3(m) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

    In applying subparagraph (A), the excess determined under subparagraph (A) for the contribution year shall be reduced to the extent that such excess reduces taxable income (as computed for purposes of the second sentence of section 172(b)(2)) and increases the net operating loss deduction for a taxable year succeeding the contribution year.

    Any contribution made by a corporation in a taxable year (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as the “contribution year”) in excess of the amount deductible for such year under subsection (b)(2)(A) shall be deductible for each of the 5 succeeding taxable years in order of time, but only to the extent of the lesser of the two following amounts: (i) the excess of the maximum amount deductible for such succeeding taxable year under subsection (b)(2)(A) over the sum of the contributions made in such year plus the aggregate of the excess contributions which were made in taxable years before the contribution year and which are deductible under this subparagraph for such succeeding taxable year or (ii) in the case of the first succeeding taxable year, the amount of such excess contribution, and in the case of the second, third, fourth, or fifth succeeding taxable year, the portion of such excess contribution not deductible under this subparagraph for any taxable year intervening between the contribution year and such succeeding taxable year.

    If such aggregate amount exceeds the limitation imposed under clause (ii), such excess shall be treated (in a manner consistent with the rules of subsection (d)) as a (II) Coordination with overall corporate limitation

    For purposes of this subparagraph, the term “apparently wholesome food” has the meaning given to such term by section 22(b)(2) of the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act (42 U.S.C. 1791(b)(2)), as in effect on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.

    In the case of a qualified research contribution, the reduction under paragraph (1)(A) shall be no greater than the amount determined under paragraph (3)(B).

    For purposes of this paragraph, property shall be treated as constructed by the taxpayer only if the cost of the parts used in the construction of such property (other than parts manufactured by the taxpayer or a related person) do not exceed 50 percent of the taxpayer’s basis in such property.

    Subparagraph (B)(ii) of paragraph (1) shall not apply to any contribution of qualified appreciated stock.

    In the case of any donor, the term “qualified appreciated stock” shall not include any stock of a corporation contributed by the donor in a contribution to which paragraph (1)(B)(ii) applies (determined without regard to this paragraph) to the extent that the amount of the stock so contributed (when increased by the aggregate amount of all prior such contributions by the donor of stock in such corporation) exceeds 10 percent (in value) of all of the outstanding stock of such corporation.

    For purposes of clause (i), an individual shall be treated as making all contributions made by any member of his family (as defined in section 267(c)(4)).

    No deduction shall be allowed under this section for a contribution to or for the use of an organization or trust described in section 508(d) or 4948(c)(4) subject to the conditions specified in such sections.

    In the case of property transferred in trust, no deduction shall be allowed under this section for the value of a contribution of a remainder interest unless the trust is a charitable remainder annuity trust or a charitable remainder unitrust (described in section 664), or a pooled income fund (described in section 642(c)(5)).

    No deduction shall be allowed under this section for the value of any interest in property (other than a remainder interest) transferred in trust unless the interest is in the form of a guaranteed annuity or the trust instrument specifies that the interest is a fixed percentage distributed yearly of the fair market value of the trust property (to be determined yearly) and the grantor is treated as the owner of such interest for purposes of applying section 671. If the donor ceases to be treated as the owner of such an interest for purposes of applying section 671, at the time the donor ceases to be so treated, the donor shall for purposes of this chapter be considered as having received an amount of income equal to the amount of any deduction he received under this section for the contribution reduced by the discounted value of all amounts of income earned by the trust and taxable to him before the time at which he ceases to be treated as the owner of the interest. Such amounts of income shall be discounted to the date of the contribution. The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subparagraph.

    In any case in which a deduction is allowed under this section for the value of an interest in property described in subparagraph (B), transferred in trust, no deduction shall be allowed under this section to the grantor or any other person for the amount of any contribution made by the trust with respect to such interest.

    This paragraph shall not apply in a case in which the value of all interests in property transferred in trust are deductible under subsection (a).

    In the case of a contribution (not made by a transfer in trust) of an interest in property which consists of less than the taxpayer’s entire interest in such property, a deduction shall be allowed under this section only to the extent that the value of the interest contributed would be allowable as a deduction under this section if such interest had been transferred in trust. For purposes of this subparagraph, a contribution by a taxpayer of the right to use property shall be treated as a contribution of less than the taxpayer’s entire interest in such property.

    For purposes of this section, in determining the value of a remainder interest in real property, depreciation (computed on the straight line method) and depletion of such property shall be taken into account, and such value shall be discounted at a rate of 6 percent per annum, except that the Secretary may prescribe a different rate.

    No deduction shall be allowed under this section for an out-of-pocket expenditure made by any person on behalf of an organization described in subsection (c) (other than an organization described in section 501(h)(5) (relating to churches, etc.)) if the expenditure is made for the purpose of influencing legislation (within the meaning of section 501(c)(3)).

    A deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) in respect of any qualified reformation (within the meaning of section 2055(e)(3)(B)).

    For purposes of this paragraph, rules similar to the rules of section 2055(e)(3) shall apply.

    No deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any contribution of $250 or more unless the taxpayer substantiates the contribution by a contemporaneous written acknowledgment of the contribution by the donee organization that meets the requirements of subparagraph (B).

    The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations that may provide that some or all of the requirements of this paragraph do not apply in appropriate cases.

    No deduction shall be allowed under this section for a contribution to an organization which conducts activities to which section 162(e)(1) applies on matters of direct financial interest to the donor’s trade or business, if a principal purpose of the contribution was to avoid Federal income tax by securing a deduction for such activities under this section which would be disallowed by reason of section 162(e) if the donor had conducted such activities directly. No deduction shall be allowed under section 162(a) for any amount for which a deduction is disallowed under the preceding sentence.

    For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term “personal benefit contract” means, with respect to the transferor, any life insurance, annuity, or endowment contract if any direct or indirect beneficiary under such contract is the transferor, any member of the transferor’s family, or any other person (other than an organization described in subsection (c)) designated by the transferor.

    In the case of a transfer to a trust referred to in subparagraph (E), references in subparagraphs (A) and (F) to an organization described in subsection (c) shall be treated as a reference to such trust.

    There is hereby imposed on any organization described in subsection (c) an excise tax equal to the premiums paid by such organization on any life insurance, annuity, or endowment contract if the payment of premiums on such contract is in connection with a transfer for which a deduction is not allowable under subparagraph (A), determined without regard to when such transfer is made.

    For purposes of clause (i), payments made by any other person pursuant to an understanding or expectation referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be treated as made by the organization.

    The tax imposed by this subparagraph shall be treated as imposed by chapter 42 for purposes of this title other than subchapter B of chapter 42.

    For purposes of this paragraph, an individual’s family consists of the individual’s grandparents, the grandparents of such individual’s spouse, the lineal descendants of such grandparents, and any spouse of such a lineal descendant.

    The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations to prevent the avoidance of such purposes.

    In the case of an individual, partnership, or corporation, no deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any contribution of property for which a deduction of more than $500 is claimed unless such person meets the requirements of subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D), as the case may be, with respect to such contribution.

    Subparagraphs (C) and (D) shall not apply to cash, property described in subsection (e)(1)(B)(iii) or section 1221(a)(1), publicly traded securities (as defined in section 6050L(a)(2)(B)), and any qualified vehicle described in paragraph (12)(A)(ii) for which an acknowledgement under paragraph (12)(B)(iii) is provided.

    Clause (i) shall not apply if it is shown that the failure to meet such requirements is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.

    In the case of contributions of property for which a deduction of more than $500 is claimed, the requirements of this subparagraph are met if the individual, partnership or corporation includes with the return for the taxable year in which the contribution is made a description of such property and such other information as the Secretary may require. The requirements of this subparagraph shall not apply to a C corporation which is not a personal service corporation or a closely held C corporation.

    In the case of contributions of property for which a deduction of more than $5,000 is claimed, the requirements of this subparagraph are met if the individual, partnership, or corporation obtains a (D) Substantiation for contributions of more than $500,000

    In the case of contributions of property for which a deduction of more than $500,000 is claimed, the requirements of this subparagraph are met if the individual, partnership, or corporation attaches to the return for the taxable year a (E) Qualified appraisal and appraiser For purposes of this paragraph—

    For purposes of determining thresholds under this paragraph, property and all similar items of property donated to 1 or more donees shall be treated as 1 property.

    In the case of a partnership or S corporation, this paragraph shall be applied at the entity level, except that the deduction shall be denied at the partner or shareholder level.

    The Secretary may prescribe such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this paragraph, including regulations that may provide that some or all of the requirements of this paragraph do not apply in appropriate cases.

    A donee organization required to provide an acknowledgement under this paragraph shall provide to the Secretary the information contained in the acknowledgement. Such information shall be provided at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe.

    The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this paragraph. The Secretary may prescribe regulations or other guidance which exempts sales by the donee organization which are in direct furtherance of such organization’s charitable purpose from the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(ii) and (B)(iv)(II).

    No deduction shall be allowed with respect to any contribution described in subparagraph (B) unless the taxpayer includes with the return for the taxable year of the contribution a $500 filing fee.

    A contribution is described in this subparagraph if such contribution is a qualified conservation contribution (as defined in subsection (h)) which is a restriction with respect to the exterior of a building described in subsection (h)(4)(C)(ii) and for which a deduction is claimed in excess of $10,000.

    Any fee collected under this paragraph shall be used for the enforcement of the provisions of subsection (h).

    For purposes of this section and notwithstanding section 1012, in the case of a taxidermy property which is made by the person who prepared, stuffed, or mounted the property or by any person who paid or incurred the cost of such preparation, stuffing, or mounting, only the cost of the preparing, stuffing, or mounting shall be included in the basis of such property.

    In the case of an individual, partnership, or corporation, no deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any contribution of clothing or a household item unless such clothing or household item is in good used condition or better.

    Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the Secretary may by regulation deny a deduction under subsection (a) for any contribution of clothing or a household item which has minimal monetary value.

    Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply to any contribution of a single item of clothing or a household item for which a deduction of more than $500 is claimed if the taxpayer includes with the taxpayer’s return a (D) Household items For purposes of this paragraph—

    The term “household items” includes furniture, furnishings, electronics, appliances, linens, and other similar items.

    In the case of a partnership or S corporation, this paragraph shall be applied at the entity level, except that the deduction shall be denied at the partner or shareholder level.

    No deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any contribution of a cash, check, or other monetary gift unless the donor maintains as a record of such contribution a bank record or a written communication from the donee showing the name of the donee organization, the date of the contribution, and the amount of the contribution.

    Paragraph (1) shall apply to amounts paid within the taxable year only to the extent that such amounts do not exceed $50 multiplied by the number of full calendar months during the taxable year which fall within the period described in paragraph (1). For purposes of the preceding sentence, if 15 or more days of a calendar month fall within such period such month shall be considered as a full calendar month.

    Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any amount paid by the taxpayer within the taxable year if the taxpayer receives any money or other property as compensation or reimbursement for maintaining the individual in his household during the period described in paragraph (1).

    For purposes of paragraph (1), the term “relative of the taxpayer” means an individual who, with respect to the taxpayer, bears any of the relationships described in subparagraphs (A) through (G) of section 152(d)(2).

    No deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any amount paid by a taxpayer to maintain an individual as a member of his household under a program described in paragraph (1)(A) except as provided in this subsection.

    A contribution shall not be treated as exclusively for conservation purposes unless the conservation purpose is protected in perpetuity.

    Except as provided in clause (ii), in the case of a contribution of any interest where there is a retention of a qualified mineral interest, subparagraph (A) shall not be treated as met if at any time there may be extraction or removal of minerals by any surface mining method.

    With respect to any contribution of property in which the ownership of the surface estate and mineral interests has been and remains separated, subparagraph (A) shall be treated as met if the probability of surface mining occurring on such property is so remote as to be negligible.

    For purposes of computing the deduction under this section for use of a passenger automobile, the standard mileage rate shall be 14 cents per mile.

    No deduction shall be allowed under this section for traveling expenses (including amounts expended for meals and lodging) while away from home, whether paid directly or by reimbursement, unless there is no significant element of personal pleasure, recreation, or vacation in such travel.

    No deduction shall be allowed under this section for any amount described in paragraph (2).

    In the case of a taxpayer who makes a qualified intellectual property contribution, the deduction allowed under subsection (a) for each taxable year of the taxpayer ending on or after the date of such contribution shall be increased (subject to the limitations under subsection (b)) by the qualified donee income with respect to such contribution which is properly allocable to such year under this subsection.

    With respect to any qualified intellectual property contribution, the deduction allowed under subsection (a) shall be increased under paragraph (1) only to the extent that the aggregate amount of such increases with respect to such contribution exceed the amount allowed as a deduction under subsection (a) with respect to such contribution determined without regard to this subsection.

    For purposes of this subsection, the term “qualified donee income” means any net income received by or accrued to the donee which is properly allocable to the qualified intellectual property.

    For purposes of this subsection, qualified donee income shall be treated as properly allocable to a taxable year of the donor if such income is received by or accrued to the donee for the taxable year of the donee which ends within or with such taxable year of the donor.

    Income shall not be treated as properly allocable to qualified intellectual property for purposes of this subsection if such income is received by or accrued to the donee after the 10-year period beginning on the date of the contribution of such property.

    Income shall not be treated as properly allocable to qualified intellectual property for purposes of this subsection if such income is received by or accrued to the donee after the expiration of the legal life of such property.

    For purposes of this subsection, the term “applicable percentage” means the percentage determined under the following table which corresponds to a taxable year of the donor ending on or after the date of the qualified intellectual property contribution:

    Taxable Year of Donor

    Ending on or After

    Date of Contribution:

    For purposes of this subsection, the term “qualified intellectual property” means property described in subsection (e)(1)(B)(iii) (other than property contributed to or for the use of an organization described in subsection (e)(1)(B)(ii)).

    Any increase under this subsection of the deduction provided under subsection (a) shall be treated for purposes of subsection (b) as a deduction which is attributable to a (B) Net income determined by donee

    The net income taken into account under paragraph (3) shall not exceed the amount of such income reported under section 6050L(b)(1).

    Except as may be provided under subparagraph (D)(i), this subsection shall not apply with respect to any qualified intellectual property contribution for any taxable year of the donor after the 12th taxable year of the donor which ends on or after the date of such contribution.

    In the case of an individual who is recognized by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission as a whaling captain charged with the responsibility of maintaining and carrying out sanctioned whaling activities and who engages in such activities during the taxable year, the amount described in paragraph (2) (to the extent such amount does not exceed $10,000 for the taxable year) shall be treated for purposes of this section as a (2) Amount described

    The amount described in this paragraph is the aggregate of the reasonable and necessary whaling expenses paid by the taxpayer during the taxable year in carrying out sanctioned whaling activities.

    For purposes of this subsection, the term “sanctioned whaling activities” means subsistence bowhead whale hunting activities conducted pursuant to the management plan of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission.

    The Secretary shall issue guidance requiring that the taxpayer substantiate the whaling expenses for which a deduction is claimed under this subsection, including by maintaining appropriate written records with respect to the time, place, date, amount, and nature of the expense, as well as the taxpayer’s eligibility for such deduction, and that (to the extent provided by the Secretary) such substantiation be provided as part of the taxpayer’s return of tax.

    The Secretary may, by regulation, provide for exceptions to subparagraph (A) in cases where all persons who hold an interest in the property make proportional contributions of an undivided portion of the entire interest held by such persons.

    The tax imposed under this chapter for any taxable year for which there is a recapture under subparagraph (A) shall be increased by 10 percent of the amount so recaptured.

    The term “initial fractional contribution” means, with respect to any taxpayer, the first (p) Other cross references

    [1] So in original. Probably should be followed by “, and”.

    [2] See References in Text note below.

    Section 1404 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, referred to in subsec. (b)(1)(A)(ix), is classified to section 3103 of Title 7, Agriculture.

    The date of the enactment of this subparagraph, referred to in subsecs. (b)(1)(E)(iv)(II), (2)(B)(i)(II) and (h)(4)(B)(iii), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 109–280, which was approved Aug. 17, 2006 .

    The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(C)(i)(II), (iii), is Pub. L. 92–203, Dec. 18, 1971 , 85 Stat. 688, which is classified generally to chapter 33 (§ 1601 et seq.) of Title 43, Public Lands. Section 3 of the Act is classified to section 1602 of Title 43. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1601 of Title 43 and Tables.

    The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended, referred to in subsec. (e)(3)(A)(iv), is act June 25, 1938, ch. 675, 52 Stat. 1040, as amended, which is classified generally to chapter 9 (§ 301 et seq.) of Title 21, Food and Drugs. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 301 of Title 21 and Tables.

    The date of the enactment of this subparagraph, referred to in subsec. (e)(3)(C)(vi), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 109–73, which was approved Sept. 23, 2005 .

    Section 25 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, referred to in subsec. (p)(7), is classified to section 2697 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

    Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 made identical amendments to this section. The amendments by Pub. L. 110–234 were repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

    Sections 1202(a), 1204(a), 1206(a), (b)(1), 1213(a)–(d), 1214(a), (b), 1215(a), 1216(a), 1217(a), 1218(a), 1219(c)(1), and 1234(a) of Pub. L. 109–280, which directed the amendment of section 170 without specifying the act to be amended, were executed to this section which is section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, to reflect the probable intent of Congress . See 2006 Amendment notes below.

    2018—Subsec. (b)(1)(A)(ix). Pub. L. 115–141, § 401(a)(52), inserted “National” before “Agricultural”.

    Subsec. (e)(3)(D), (E). Pub. L. 115–141, § 401(b)(14), redesignated subpar. (E) as (D) and struck out former subpar. (D) which related to special rule for contributions of book inventory to public schools.

    Subsec. (p)(6). Pub. L. 115–232 substituted “section 8473 of title 10, United States Code” for “section 6973 of title 10, United States Code”.

    2017—Subsec. (b)(1)(G), (H). Pub. L. 115–97, § 11023(a), added subpar. (G) and redesignated former subpar. (G) as (H).

    Subsec. (b)(2)(D)(iv), (v). Pub. L. 115–97, § 13305(b)(2), redesignated cls. (v) and (vi) as (iv) and (v), respectively, and struck out former cl. (iv) which read as follows: “section 199,”.

    Subsec. (f)(8)(D), (E). Pub. L. 115–97, § 13705(a), redesignated subpar. (E) as (D) and struck out former subpar. (D). Prior to amendment, text of subpar. (D) read as follows: “Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a contribution if the donee organization files a return, on such form and in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, which includes the information described in subparagraph (B) with respect to the contribution.”

    Subsec. (l)(1). Pub. L. 115–97, § 13704(a)(1), added par. (1) and struck out former par. (1). Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “For purposes of this section, 80 percent of any amount described in paragraph (2) shall be treated as aSubsec. (l)(2)(B). Pub. L. 115–97, § 13704(a)(2), struck out “such amount would be allowable as a deduction under this section but for the fact that” before “the taxpayer”.

    2015—Subsec. (a)(2)(B). Pub. L. 114–41 substituted “fourth month” for “third month”.

    Subsec. (b)(1)(E)(vi). Pub. L. 114–113, § 111(a)(1), struck out cl. (vi). Text read as follows: “This subparagraph shall not apply to any contribution made in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014 .”

    Subsec. (b)(2)(A). Pub. L. 114–113, § 111(b)(2)(A), substituted “subparagraph (B) or (C) applies” for “subparagraph (B) applies”.

    Subsec. (b)(2)(B)(ii). Pub. L. 114–113, § 111(b)(2)(B), substituted “15 succeeding taxable years” for “15 succeeding years”.

    Subsec. (b)(2)(B)(iii). Pub. L. 114–113, § 111(a)(2), struck out cl. (iii). Text read as follows: “This subparagraph shall not apply to any contribution made in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014 .”

    Subsec. (b)(2)(C), (D). Pub. L. 114–113, § 111(b)(1), added subpar. (C) and redesignated former subpar. (C) as (D).

    Subsec. (e)(3)(C)(ii). Pub. L. 114–113, § 113(b), added cl. (ii) and struck out former cl. (ii). Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “In the case of a taxpayer other than a C corporation, the aggregate amount of such contributions for any taxable year which may be taken into account under this section shall not exceed 10 percent of the taxpayer’s aggregate net income for such taxable year from all trades or businesses from which such contributions were made for such year, computed without regard to this section.”

    Subsec. (e)(3)(C)(iii). Pub. L. 114–113, § 113(b), added cl. (iii). Former cl. (iii) redesignated (vi).

    Pub. L. 114–113, § 113(a), struck out cl. (iv). Text read as follows: “This subparagraph shall not apply to contributions made after December 31, 2014 .”

    Subsec. (e)(3)(C)(v), (vi). Pub. L. 114–113, § 113(b), added cl. (v) and redesignated cl. (iii) as (vi).

    2014—Subsec. (b)(1)(E)(vi). Pub. L. 113–295, § 106(a), substituted “ December 31, 2014 ” for “ December 31, 2013 ”.

    Subsec. (b)(2)(B)(iii). Pub. L. 113–295, § 106(b), substituted “ December 31, 2014 ” for “ December 31, 2013 ”.

    Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 113–295, § 221(a)(28)(A), struck out par. (3) which related to temporary suspension of limitations onPub. L. 113–295, § 126(a), substituted “ December 31, 2014 ” for “ December 31, 2013 ”.

    Subsec. (e)(6). Pub. L. 113–295, § 221(a)(28)(B), struck out par. (6) which related to special rule for contributions of computer technology and equipment for educational purposes.

    Subsec. (k). Pub. L. 113–295, § 221(a)(28)(C), struck out subsec. (k). Text read as follows: “For disallowance of deductions for contributions to or for the use of communist controlled organizations, see section 11(a) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 790).”

    2013—Subsec. (b)(1)(E)(vi). Pub. L. 112–240, § 206(a), substituted “ December 31, 2013 ” for “ December 31, 2011 ”.

    Subsec. (b)(2)(B)(iii). Pub. L. 112–240, § 206(b), substituted “ December 31, 2013 ” for “ December 31, 2011 ”.

    Subsec. (e)(3)(C)(iv). Pub. L. 112–240, § 314(a), substituted “ December 31, 2013 ” for “ December 31, 2011 ”.

    2010—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 111–312, § 723(a), (b), substituted “ December 31, 2011 ” for “ December 31, 2009 ” in pars. (1)(E)(vi) and (2)(B)(iii).

    Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 111–312, § 301(a), amended subsec. (e)(1) to read as if amendment by Pub. L. 107–16, § 542(e)(2)(B), had never been enacted. See 2001 Amendment note below.

    Subsec. (e)(3)(C)(iv). Pub. L. 111–312, § 740(a), substituted “ December 31, 2011 ” for “ December 31, 2009 ”.

    Subsec. (e)(3)(D)(iv). Pub. L. 111–312, § 741(a), substituted “ December 31, 2011 ” for “ December 31, 2009 ”.

    Subsec. (e)(6)(G). Pub. L. 111–312, § 742(a), substituted “ December 31, 2011 ” for “ December 31, 2009 ”.

    2008—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 110–246, § 15302(a), substituted “ December 31, 2009 ” for “ December 31, 2007 ” in pars. (1)(E)(vi) and (2)(B)(iii).

    Subsec. (e)(3)(C)(iv). Pub. L. 110–343, § 323(a)(1), substituted “ December 31, 2009 ” for “ December 31, 2007 ”.

    Subsec. (e)(3)(D)(iii). Pub. L. 110–343, § 324(b), inserted “of books” after “to any contribution” in introductory provisions.

    Subsec. (e)(3)(D)(iv). Pub. L. 110–343, § 324(a), substituted “ December 31, 2009 ” for “ December 31, 2007 ”.

    Subsec. (e)(6)(G). Pub. L. 110–343, § 321(a), substituted “ December 31, 2009 ” for “ December 31, 2007 ”.

    2007—Subsec. (b)(1)(A)(vii). Pub. L. 110–172, § 11(a)(14)(A), substituted “subparagraph (F)” for “subparagraph (E)”.

    Subsec. (e)(1)(B)(i)(II). Pub. L. 110–172, § 11(a)(15), inserted “, but without regard to clause (ii) thereof” after “paragraph (7)(C)”.

    Subsec. (e)(1)(B)(ii). Pub. L. 110–172, § 11(a)(14)(B), substituted “subsection (b)(1)(F)” for “subsection (b)(1)(E)”.

    Subsec. (e)(7)(D)(i)(I). Pub. L. 110–172, § 3(c), substituted “substantial and related” for “related”.

    Subsec. (o)(1)(A). Pub. L. 110–172, § 11(a)(16)(A), in introductory provisions, substituted “all interests in the property are” for “all interest in the property is”.

    Subsec. (o)(3)(A)(i). Pub. L. 110–172, § 11(a)(16)(B), in introductory provisions, substituted “interests” for “interest” and “on or before” for “before”.

    2006—Subsec. (b)(1)(E) to (G). Pub. L. 109–280, § 1206(a)(1), added subpar. (E) and redesignated former subpars. (E) and (F) as (F) and (G), respectively. See Codification note above.

    Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 109–280, § 1206(a)(2), reenacted heading without change and amended text of par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “In the case of a corporation, the total deductions under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed 10 percent of the taxpayer’s taxable income computed without regard to—

    “(D) any net operating loss carryback to the taxable year under section 172, and

    “(E) any capital loss carryback to the taxable year under section 1212(a)(1).”

    See Codification note above.

    Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 109–280, § 1206(b)(1), substituted “subsection (b)(2)(A)” for “subsection (b)(2)” wherever appearing. See Codification note above.

    Subsec. (e)(1)(A). Pub. L. 109–222 inserted “(determined without regard to section 1221(b)(3))” after “long-term capital gain”.

    Subsec. (e)(1)(B)(i). Pub. L. 109–280, § 1215(a)(1), amended cl. (i) generally. Prior to amendment, cl. (i) read as follows: “of tangible personal property, if the use by the donee is unrelated to the purpose or function constituting the basis for its exemption under section 501 (or, in the case of a governmental unit, to any purpose or function described in subsection (c)),”. See Codification note above.

    Subsec. (e)(1)(B)(iv). Pub. L. 109–280, § 1214(a), added cl. (iv). See Codification note above.

    Subsec. (e)(3)(C)(iv). Pub. L. 109–280, § 1202(a), substituted “2007” for “2005”. See Codification note above.

    Subsec. (e)(3)(D)(iv). Pub. L. 109–280, § 1204(a), substituted “2007” for “2005”. See Codification note above.

    Subsec. (e)(4)(B)(ii). Pub. L. 109–432, § 116(b)(1)(A), inserted “or assembled” after “constructed”.

    Subsec. (e)(4)(B)(iii). Pub. L. 109–432, § 116(b)(1)(B), inserted “or assembly” after “construction”.

    Subsec. (e)(6)(B)(ii). Pub. L. 109–432, § 116(b)(2)(A), inserted “or assembled” after “constructed” and “or assembling” after “construction”.

    Subsec. (e)(6)(D). Pub. L. 109–432, § 116(b)(2)(B), inserted “or assembled” after “constructed” in introductory provisions and “or assembly” after “construction” in cl. (i).

    Subsec. (e)(7). Pub. L. 109–280, § 1215(a)(2), added par. (7). See Codification note above.

    Subsec. (f)(11)(E). Pub. L. 109–280, § 1219(c)(1), amended heading and text of subpar. (E) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “For purposes of this paragraph, the term Pub. L. 109–280, § 1213(c), added par. (13). See Codification note above.

    Subsec. (f)(14). Pub. L. 109–280, § 1213(d), added par. (14). See Codification note above.

    Subsec. (f)(15). Pub. L. 109–280, § 1214(b), added par. (15). See Codification note above.

    Subsec. (f)(16). Pub. L. 109–280, § 1216(a), added par. (16). See Codification note above.

    Subsec. (f)(17). Pub. L. 109–280, § 1217(a), added par. (17). See Codification note above.

    Subsec. (f)(18). Pub. L. 109–280, § 1234(a), added par. (18). See Codification note above.

    Subsec. (h)(4)(B). Pub. L. 109–280, § 1213(a)(1), added subpar. (B). Former subpar. (B) redesignated (C).

    Subsec. (h)(4)(C). Pub. L. 109–280, § 1213(a)(1), (b), redesignated subpar. (B) as (C), struck out “any building, structure, or land area which” after “means” in introductory provisions, inserted “any building, structure, or land area which” before “is listed” in cl. (i), and inserted “any building which” before “is located” in cl. (ii). See Codification note above.

    Subsecs. (o), (p). Pub. L. 109–280, § 1218(a), added subsec. (o) and redesignated former subsec. (o) as (p). See Codification note above.

    2005—Subsec. (b)(2)(C) to (E). Pub. L. 109–135, § 403(a)(16), added subpar. (C) and redesignated former subpars. (C) and (D) as (D) and (E), respectively.

    Subsec. (e)(3)(C). Pub. L. 109–73, § 305(a), added subpar. (C). Former subpar. (C) redesignated (D).

    Subsec. (e)(3)(D). Pub. L. 109–73, § 306(a), added subpar. (D). Former subpar. (D) redesignated (E).

    Subsec. (e)(3)(E). Pub. L. 109–73, § 306(a), redesignated subpar. (D) as (E).

    Subsec. (e)(6)(G). Pub. L. 108–311, § 306(a), substituted “2005” for “2003”.

    Subsec. (f)(10)(A). Pub. L. 108–357, § 413(c)(30), struck out “556(b)(2),” after “545(b)(2),” in introductory provisions.

    Subsec. (f)(11)(A)(ii)(I). Pub. L. 108–357, § 882(d), inserted “subsection (e)(1)(B)(iii) or” before “section 1221(a)(1)”.

    Subsec. (g)(1). Pub. L. 108–311, § 207(15), inserted “(determined without regard to subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), and (d)(1)(B) thereof)” after “section 152” in introductory provisions.

    Subsec. (g)(3). Pub. L. 108–311, § 207(16), substituted “subparagraphs (A) through (G) of section 152(d)(2)” for “paragraphs (1) through (8) of section 152(a)”.

    Subsec. (m). Pub. L. 108–357, § 882(b), added subsec. (m). Former subsec. (m) redesignated (n).

    Subsec. (n). Pub. L. 108–357, § 335(a), added subsec. (n). Former subsec. (n) redesignated (o).

    Pub. L. 108–357, § 882(b), redesignated subsec. (m) as (n). Amendment was executed before the amendment by Pub. L. 108–357, § 335(a). See note below.

    Subsec. (o). Pub. L. 108–357, § 335(a), redesignated subsec. (n) as (o).

    2002—Subsec. (e)(6)(B)(i)(III). Pub. L. 107–147, § 417(7), substituted “2000),” for “ 2000,”.

    Subsec. (e)(6)(B)(iv). Pub. L. 107–147, § 417(22), provided that the amendment made by section 165(b)(1) of the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000 [Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(7)[title I, § 165(b)(1)]] shall be applied as if it struck “in any of the grades K–12”. See 2000 Amendment note below.

    2001—Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 107–16, § 542(e)(2)(B), inserted at end “For purposes of this paragraph, the determination of whether property is a capital asset shall be made without regard to the exception contained in section 1221(a)(3)(C) for basis determined under section 1022.”

    2000—Subsec. (e)(6). Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(7) [title I, § 165(b)(2)], substituted “educational purposes” for “elementary or secondary school purposes” in heading.

    Subsec. (e)(6)(A), (B). Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(7) [title I, § 165(a)(1)], substituted “qualified computer contribution” for “qualified elementary or secondary educational contribution” in subpar. (A) and in heading and introductory provisions of subpar. (B).

    Subsec. (e)(6)(B)(iv). Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(7) [title I, § 165(b)(1)], which directed the amendment of cl. (iv) by striking “in any grades of the K–12”, was executed by striking out “in any of the grades K–12” after “educational purposes”. See 2002 Amendment note above.

    Subsec. (e)(6)(C). Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(7) [title I, § 165(a)(1)], substituted “qualified computer contribution” for “qualified elementary or secondary educational contribution” in introductory provisions.

    Subsec. (e)(6)(D), (E). Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(7) [title I, § 165(e)], added subpar. (D) and redesignated former subpar. (D) as (E). Former subpar. (E) redesignated (F).

    Subsec. (e)(6)(F). Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(7) [title I, § 165(e)], redesignated subpar. (E) as (F). Former subpar. (F) redesignated (G).

    Pub. L. 106–554, § 1(a)(7) [title I, § 165(c)], substituted “ December 31, 2003 ” for “ December 31, 2000 ”.

    1999—Subsec. (e)(3)(A), (4)(B). Pub. L. 106–170, § 532(c)(1)(A), (B), substituted “section 1221(a)” for “section 1221”.

    1998—Subsec. (e)(5)(D). Pub. L. 105–277 struck out heading and text of subpar. (D). Text read as follows: “This paragraph shall not apply to contributions made—

    “(i) after December 31, 1994 , and before July 1, 1996 , or

    Subsec. (e)(6)(B)(iv). Pub. L. 105–206, § 6004(e)(2), substituted “function of the donee” for “function of the organization or entity”.

    Subsec. (e)(6)(B)(vi), (vii). Pub. L. 105–206, § 6004(e)(1), substituted “donee’s” for “entity’s”.

    Subsec. (e)(6)(C)(ii)(I). Pub. L. 105–206, § 6004(e)(3), substituted “a donee” for “an entity”.

    1997—Subsec. (e)(5)(D)(ii). Pub. L. 105–34, § 602(a), substituted “ June 30, 1998 ” for “ May 31, 1997 ”.

    Subsec. (h)(5)(B)(ii). Pub. L. 105–34, § 508(d), amended heading and text of cl. (ii) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “With respect to any contribution of property in which the ownership of the surface estate and mineral interests were separated before June 13, 1976 , and remain so separated, subparagraph (A) shall be treated as met if the probability of surface mining occurring on such property is so remote as to be negligible.”

    Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 105–34, § 973(a), amended heading and text of subsec. (i) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “For purposes of computing the deduction under this section for use of a passenger automobile the standard mileage rate shall be 12 cents per mile.”

    1996—Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 104–188, § 1316(b), inserted at end “For purposes of applying this paragraph in the case of aPub. L. 104–188, § 1206(a), reenacted heading without change and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “This paragraph shall not apply to contributions made after December 31, 1994 .”

    1990—Subsec. (h)(4)(B)(ii). Pub. L. 101–508, § 11813(b)(10), substituted “section 47(c)(3)(B)” for “section 48(g)(3)(B)”.

    Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 101–508, § 11801(a)(11), (c)(5), redesignated subsec. (j) as (i) and struck out former subsec. (i) which related to rule for nonitemization of deductions,Pub. L. 101–508, § 11801(c)(5), redesignated subsecs. (j) to (n) as (i) to (m), respectively.

    1988—Subsecs. (m), (n). Pub. L. 100–647 added subsec. (m) and redesignated former subsec. (m) as (n).

    1987—Subsec. (c)(2)(D). Pub. L. 100–203 inserted “(or in opposition to)” after “on behalf of”.

    1986—Subsec. (b)(1)(C)(iv). Pub. L. 99–514, § 1831, substituted “this paragraph” for “this subparagraph”.

    Subsec. (e)(1)(B). Pub. L. 99–514, § 301(b)(2), in closing provisions, struck out “40 percent ( 28 ⁄46 in the case of a corporation) of” before “the amount of gain”.

    Subsec. (e)(4)(B)(i). Pub. L. 99–514, § 231(f), amended cl. (i) generally. Prior to amendment, cl. (i) read as follows: “the contribution is to an educational organization which is described in subsection (b)(1)(A)(ii) of this section and which is an institution of higher education (as defined in section 3304(f)),”.

    Subsecs. (k) to (m). Pub. L. 99–514, § 142(d), added subsec. (k) and redesignated former subsecs. (k) and (l) as (l) and (m), respectively.

    1984—Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 98–369, § 174(b)(5)(A), substituted “section 267(b) or 707(b)” for “section 267(b)”.

    Subsec. (b)(1)(A)(vii). Pub. L. 98–369, § 301(c)(2)(A), substituted “subparagraph (E)” for “subparagraph (D)”.

    Subsec. (b)(1)(B). Pub. L. 98–369, § 301(a)(2), inserted at end “If the aggregate of such contributions exceeds the limitation of the preceding sentence, such excess shall be treated (in a manner consistent with the rules of subsection (d)(1)) as aPub. L. 98–369, § 301(a)(1), substituted “30 percent” for “20 percent”.

    Subsec. (b)(1)(C). Pub. L. 98–369, § 301(c)(2)(B), inserted “described in subparagraph (A)” in subpar. (C) heading, and in text of cl. (i) substituted “In the case ofPub. L. 98–369, § 301(c)(1), added subpar. (D) and redesignated former subpars. (D) and (E) as (E) and (F), respectively.

    Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 98–369, § 492(b)(1)(A), struck out in provision following subpar. (B) “1251(c),” after “1250(a)”.

    Subsec. (e)(1)(B)(ii). Pub. L. 98–369, § 301(c)(2)(C), substituted “subsection (b)(1)(E)” for “subsection (b)(1)(D)”.

    Subsec. (h)(5)(B). Pub. L. 98–369, § 1035(a), designated existing provisions as cl. (i), inserted “Except as provided in clause (ii)”, and added cl. (ii).

    Subsec. (j). Pub. L. 98–369, § 1031(a), added subsec. (j). Former subsec. (j) redesignated (k).

    Subsec. (k). Pub. L. 98–369, § 1031(a), redesignated subsec. (j) as (k). Former subsec. (k) redesignated (l).

    Subsec. (l). Pub. L. 98–369, § 1032(b)(1), added par. (1) and redesignated former pars. (1) to (8) as (2) to (9), respectively.

    1983—Subsec. (h)(4)(B)(ii). Pub. L. 97–448 substituted “section 48(g)(3)(B)” for “section 191(d)(2)”.

    1982—Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 97–248 inserted provision that rules similar to the rules of section 501(j) of this title shall apply for purposes of this paragraph.

    Subsec. (e)(3)(A). Pub. L. 97–354, § 5(a)(21)(A), substituted “an S corporation” for “an electing small business corporation within the meaning of section 1371(b)”.

    Subsec. (e)(4)(D)(i). Pub. L. 97–354, § 5(a)(21)(B), substituted “an S corporation” for “an electing small business corporation (as defined in section 1371(b))”.

    Subsec. (k)(7). Pub. L. 97–258 substituted “section 4043 of title 18, United States Code” for “section 2 of the Act of May 15, 1952, as amended by the Act of July 9, 1952 (31 U.S.C. 725s–4)”.

    1981—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 97–34, § 263(a), increased to 10 from 5 percent deduction allowable to a corporation in any taxable year forPub. L. 97–34, § 222(a), added par. (4).

    Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 97–34, § 121(a), added subsec. (i). Former subsec. (i) redesignated (j).

    Subsecs. (j), (k). Pub. L. 97–34, § 121(a), redesignated former subsecs. (i) and (j) as (j) and (k), respectively.

    1980—Subsec. (f)(3). Pub. L. 96–541, § 6(a), reenacted subpar. (B), cls. (i) and (ii), substituted cl. (B)(iii) relating toPub. L. 96–541, § 6(b), added subsec. (h) and redesignated former subsec. (h) as (i). Former subsec. (i) redesignated (j).

    Subsec. (i)(6). Pub. L. 96–465, among other changes, inserted references to Director of the International Communication Agency and the Director of the United States International Development Cooperation Agency, and substituted reference to section 25 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 for reference to section 1021(e) of the Foreign Service Act of 1946.

    Subsec. (j). Pub. L. 96–541, § 6(b), redesignated former subsec. (i) as (j).

    1978—Subsec. (e)(1)(B). Pub. L. 95–600 substituted “40 percent” for “50 percent” and “ 28 ⁄46” for “62½ percent”.

    1977—Subsec. (f)(3)(B)(iii). Pub. L. 95–30 substituted “real property granted in perpetuity to an organization” for “real property of not less than 30 years’ duration granted to an organization”.

    1976—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1906(b)(13)(A), struck out “or his delegate” after “Secretary”.

    Subsec. (b)(1)(A)(vii). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1901(a)(28)(A)(iii), substituted “subparagraph (D)” for “subparagraph (E)” after “described in”.

    Subsec. (b)(1)(B)(ii). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1901(a)(28)(A)(iv), substituted “subparagraph (C)” for “subparagraph (D)” after “without regard to”.

    Subsec. (b)(1)(C). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1901(a)(28)(A)(ii), struck out subpar. (C) which related to unlimited deductions for certain individuals, redesignated subpar. (D) as (C) and, as so redesignated, § 1906(b)(13)(A), struck out “or his delegate” after “Secretary” in cl. (iii).

    Subsec. (b)(1)(D) to (F). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1901(a)(28)(A)(ii), redesignated subpars. (D) to (F) as (C) to (E), respectively.

    Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 95–455, § 1052(c)(2), struck out subpar. (D) which related to a special deduction for Western Hemisphere trade corporations, and redesignated subpar. (E) as (D).

    Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1901(a)(28)(A)(v), substituted “subsection (g)” for “subsection (h)” after “amount treated under”.

    Subsec. (c)(2)(B). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1313(b)(1), inserted “or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involves the provision of athletic facilities or equipment)” after “or educational purposes”.

    Subsec. (c)(2)(D). Pub. L. 94–445, § 1307(d)(1)(B)(i), substituted “which is not disqualified for tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) by reason of attempting to influence legislation” for “no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation” after “(D)”.

    Subsec. (d)(1)(A). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1901(a)(28)(B), struck out “(30 percent in the case of a contribution year beginning before January 1, 1970 )” after “exceeds 50 percent”.

    Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 94–455, § 205(c)(1)(A), substituted “1252(a), or 1254(a)” for “or 1252(a)” after “1251(c)”.

    Subsec. (e)(1)(B)(ii). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1901(a)(28)(A)(vi), substituted “subsection (b)(1)(D)” for “subsection (b)(1)(E)” after “foundation described in”.

    Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1906(b)(13)(A), struck out “or his delegate” after “Secretary”.

    Subsec. (f)(2). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1906(b)(13)(A), struck out “or his delegate” after “Secretary”.

    Subsec. (f)(4). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1906(b)(13)(A), struck out “or his delegate” after “Secretary”.

    Subsec. (f)(6). Pub. L. 94–455, §§ 1307(c), 1901(a)(28)(A)(i), added par. (6). Former par. (6), which related to the partial reduction of unlimited deduction and definitions for transitional income and deduction percentages, was struck out. Section 1901(a)(28)(A)(i) of Pub. L. 94–455 struck out par. (6) a second time.

    Subsec. (g)(1)(B). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1901(b)(8)(A), substituted “educational organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii)” for “educational institution (as defined in section 151(e)(4)” after “grade at an”.

    Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1901(a)(28)(A)(i), (C), redesignated subsec. (i) as (h), and struck out “64 Stat. 996” after “Act of 1950”. Former subsec. (h) redesignated (g).

    Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1901(a)(28)(A)(i), (D), redesignated subsec. (j) as (i) and substituted “6973 of title 10, United States Code” for “3 of the Act of March 31, 1944 (58 Stat. 135 34 U.S.C. 1115b)” after “see section” in par. (5) struck out par. (6) relating to gifts to library of Post Office Department struck out “60 Stat. 924” after “1946” in par. (7) substituted “as amended by the Act of July 9, 1952 (3 U.S.C. 725s–4)” for “(66 Stat. 73, as amended by Act of July 9, 1952 , 66 Stat. 479, 31 U.S.C. 725s–4)” after “ May 15, 1952 ” in par. (8) and redesignated pars. (7) and (8) as pars. (6) and (7), respectively. Former subsec. (i) redesignated (h).

    Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 91–172, § 201(a)(1)(B), (h)(1), increased the general limitation on thePub. L. 91–172, § 201(a)(1)(B), struck out references to “Territory” in pars. (1) and (2)(A), and inserted reference to participation in or intervention in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office in par. (2)(D).

    Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 91–172, § 201(a)(1)(B), added subsec. (d) consisting of provisions substantially transferred from subsec. (b) in the general amendment of subsec. (b) by Pub. L. 91–172. Former subsec. (d) redesignated (b).

    Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 91–172, § 201(a)(1)(B), substituted provisions covering certain contributions of ordinary income andPub. L. 91–172, § 201(a)(1)(B), substituted provisions for the disallowance of the deduction in specified cases for provision covering future interests in tangible personal property.

    Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 91–172, § 201(a)(2)(A), substituted “subsection (d)(1)” for “subsection (b)(5)” in two places in par. (1) and struck out par. (2)(B) covering contributions to organizations substantially more than half of the assets and the total income were devoted to charitable purposes.

    Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 91–172, § 201(a)(1)(A), redesignated subsec. (d) as (h). Former subsec. (h) redesignated (i).

    Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 91–172, §§ 101(j)(2), 201(a)(1)(A), redesignated former subsec. (h) as (i), struck out par. (1) covering disallowance of deductions for gifts to charitable organizations engaging in prohibited transactions, and removed the par. (2) designation from the provisions covering disallowance of deductions for use of communist controlled organizations. Former subsec. (i) redesignated (j).

    Subsec. (j). Pub. L. 91–172, § 201(a)(1)(A), redesignated former subsec. (i) as (j).

    1966—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 89–570 inserted reference to section 617(d)(1).

    1964—Subsec. (b)(1)(A)(v), (vi), (2), (5). Pub. L. 88–272, § 209 (a), (c)(1), (d)(1), added cls. (v) and (vi) in par. (1)(A), and par. (5), and in par. (2), extended the 2-year carryforward of unusedPub. L. 88–272, § 231(b)(1), substituted “certain property” for “section 1245 property” in heading, and inserted reference to section 1250(a) in text.

    Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 88–272, § 209(e), added subsec. (f). Former subsec. (f) redesignated (h).

    Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 88–272, § 209(b), added subsec. (g). Former subsec. (g) redesignated (i).

    Subsecs. (h), (i). Pub. L. 88–272, § 209(e), redesignated former subsecs. (f) and (g) as (h) and (i), respectively.

    Subsec. (b)(1)(B). Pub. L. 87–858, § 2(b), substituted “anyPub. L. 87–834 added subsec. (e) and redesignated former subsecs. (e) and (f) as (f) and (g), respectively.

    1960—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 86–779, § 7(a)(1), inserted sentence additionally defining Pub. L. 86–779, § 7(a)(2), added subsec. (d) and redesignated former subsecs. (d) and (e) as (e) and (f), respectively.

    1958—Subsec. (b)(1)(C). Pub. L. 85–866, § 10(a), inserted sentence allowing substitution, in lieu of amount of tax paid during year, amount of tax paid in respect of such year, provided amount so included in the year in respect of which payment was made be not included in any other year.

    1956—Subsec. (b)(1)(A)(iii). Act Aug. 7, 1956 , § 1, provided for the allowance, as deductions, of contributions to medical research organizations.

    International Communication Agency, and Director thereof, redesignated United States Information Agency, and Director thereof, by section 303 of Pub. L. 97–241, title III, Aug. 24, 1982 , 96 Stat. 291, set out as a note under section 1461 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse. United States Information Agency (other than Broadcasting Board of Governors and International Broadcasting Bureau ) abolished and functions transferred to Secretary of State, see sections 6531 and 6532 of Title 22.

    Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019 , with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of Title 10, Armed Forces.

    Amendment by section 11011(d)(5) of Pub. L. 115–97 applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017 , see section 11011(e) of Pub. L. 115–97, set out as a note under section 62 of this title.

    Amendment by section 13305(b)(2) of Pub. L. 115–97 applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017 , except as provided by transition rule, see section 13305(c) of Pub. L. 115–97, set out as a note under section 74 of this title.

    Amendment by section 221(a)(28) of Pub. L. 113–295 effective Dec. 19, 2014 , subject to a savings provision, see section 221(b) of Pub. L. 113–295, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

    Amendment by section 301(a) of Pub. L. 111–312 applicable to estates of decedents dying, and transfers made after Dec. 31, 2009 , except as otherwise provided, see section 301(e) of Pub. L. 111–312, set out as an Effective and Termination Dates of 2010 Amendment note under section 121 of this title.

    Amendment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008 , the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8701 of Title 7, Agriculture.

    [Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 enacted identical provisions. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as a note under section 8701 of Title 7, Agriculture.]

    Amendments by Pub. L. 109–135 effective as if included in the provisions of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108–357, to which they relate, see section 403(nn) of Pub. L. 109–135, set out as a note under section 26 of this title.

    Amendment by section 413(c)(30) of Pub. L. 108–357 applicable to taxable years of foreign corporations beginning after Dec. 31, 2004 , and to taxable years of United States shareholders with or within which such taxable years of foreign corporations end, see section 413(d)(1) of Pub. L. 108–357, set out as an Effective and Termination Dates of 2004 Amendments note under section 1 of this title.

    Amendment by section 207(15), (16) of Pub. L. 108–311 applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2004 , see section 208 of Pub. L. 108–311, set out as a note under section 2 of this title.

    Amendment by Pub. L. 107–16 applicable to estates of decedents dying after Dec. 31, 2009 , see section 542(f)(1) of Pub. L. 107–16, set out as a note under section 121 of this title.

    Amendment by Pub. L. 105–206 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if included in the provisions of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Pub. L. 105–34, to which such amendment relates, see section 6024 of Pub. L. 105–206, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

    Amendment by section 13222(b) of Pub. L. 103–66 applicable to amounts paid or incurred after Dec. 31, 1993 , see section 13222(e) of Pub. L. 103–66 set out as a note under section 162 of this title.

    Amendment by section 11813(b)(10) of Pub. L. 101–508 applicable to property placed in service after Dec. 31, 1990 , but not applicable to any transition property (as defined in section 49(e) of this title), any property with respect to which qualified progress expenditures were previously taken into account under section 46(d) of this title, and any property described in section 46(b)(2)(C) of this title, as such sections were in effect on Nov. 4, 1990 , see section 11813(c) of Pub. L. 101–508, set out as a note under section 45K of this title.

    Amendment by section 142(d) of Pub. L. 99–514 applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1986 , see section 151(a) of Pub. L. 99–514, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

    Amendment by section 231(f) of Pub. L. 99–514 applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1985 , see section 231(g) of Pub. L. 99–514, set out as a note under section 41 of this title.

    Amendment by section 301(b)(2) of Pub. L. 99–514 applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1986 , see section 301(c) of Pub. L. 99–514, set out as a note under section 62 of this title.

    Amendment by section 1831 of Pub. L. 99–514 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if included in the provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, to which such amendment relates, see section 1881 of Pub. L. 99–514, set out as a note under section 48 of this title.

    Amendment by section 174(b)(5)(A) of Pub. L. 98–369, applicable to transactions after Dec. 31, 1983 , in taxable years ending after that date, see section 174(c)(2)(A) of Pub. L. 98–369, set out as a note under section 267 of this title.

    Amendment by section 1022(b) of Pub. L. 98–369 applicable to reformations after Dec. 31, 1978 , except inapplicable to any reformation to which section 2055(e)(3) of this title as in effect before July 18, 1984 , applies, see section 1022(e)(1) of Pub. L. 98–369, set out as a note under section 2055 of this title.

    For effective date of amendment by Pub. L. 97–473, see section 204(1) of Pub. L. 97–473, set out as an Effective Date note under section 7871 of this title.

    Amendment by title I of Pub. L. 97–448 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if it had been included in the provision of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, Pub. L. 97–34, to which such amendment relates, see section 109 of Pub. L. 97–448, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

    Amendment by Pub. L. 97–354 applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1982 , see section 6(a) of Pub. L. 97–354, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1361 of this title.

    Amendment by Pub. L. 97–248 effective Oct. 5, 1976 , see section 286(c) of Pub. L. 97–248, set out as a note under section 501 of this title.

    Amendment by Pub. L. 96–465 effective Feb. 15, 1981 , except as otherwise provided, see section 2403 of Pub. L. 96–465, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3901 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

    Amendment by section 1307 (d)(1)(B)(i), (c) of Pub. L. 94–455 effective for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1976 , see section 1307(e) of Pub. L. 94–455, set out as a note under section 501 of this title.

    Amendment by section 1901(a)(28) of Pub. L. 94–455 effective for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1976 , see section 1901(d) of Pub. L. 94–455, set out as a note under section 2 of this title.

    Amendment by section 101(j)(2) of Pub. L. 91–172 to take effect on Jan. 1, 1970 , see section 101(k)(1) of Pub. L. 91–172, set out as an Effective Date note under section 4940 of this title.

    Amendment by Pub. L. 89–570 applicable to taxable years ending after Sept. 12, 1966 , but only in respect of expenditures paid or incurred after such date, see section 3 of Pub. L. 89–570, set out as an Effective Date note under section 617 of this title.

    Amendment by Pub. L. 87–834 applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1962 , see section 13(g) of Pub. L. 87–834, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1245 of this title.

    Amendment by Pub. L. 86–779 applicable with respect to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1959 , see section 7(c) of Pub. L. 86–779, set out as a note under section 162 of this title.

    Amendment by section 11 of Pub. L. 85–866 applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1953 , and ending after Aug. 16, 1954 , see section 1(c)(1) of Pub. L. 85–866, set out as a note under section 165 of this title.

    Act Aug. 7, 1956, ch. 1031, § 2, 70 Stat. 1118, provided that:

    For provisions that nothing in amendment by section 401(b)(14) of Pub. L. 115–141 be construed to affect treatment of certain transactions occurring, property acquired, or items of income, loss, deduction, or credit taken into account prior to Mar. 23, 2018 , for purposes of determining liability for tax for periods ending after Mar. 23, 2018 , see section 401(e) of Pub. L. 115–141, set out as a note under section 23 of this title.

    For provisions that nothing in amendment by Pub. L. 101–508 be construed to affect treatment of certain transactions occurring, property acquired, or items of income, loss, deduction, or credit taken into account prior to Nov. 5, 1990 , for purposes of determining liability for tax for periods ending after Nov. 5, 1990 , see section 11821(b) of Pub. L. 101–508, set out as a note under section 45K of this title.

    United States International Development Cooperation Agency (other than Agency for International Development and Overseas Private Investment Corporation ) abolished and functions and authorities transferred, see sections 6561 and 6562 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

    For transfer of functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to the United States International Development Finance Corporation and treatment of related references, see sections 9683 and 9686(d) of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

    For provisions directing that if any amendments made by subtitle A or subtitle C of title XI [§§ 1101–1147 and 1171–1177] or title XVIII [§§ 1800–1899A] of Pub. L. 99–514 require an amendment to any plan, such plan amendment shall not be required to be made before the first plan year beginning on or after Jan. 1, 1989 , see section 1140 of Pub. L. 99–514, as amended, set out as a note under section 401 of this title.

    Pub. L. 99–514, title XVI, § 1608, Oct. 22, 1986 , 100 Stat. 2771, which related to treatment of certain amounts paid to or for the benefit of certain institutions of higher education, was repealed by Pub. L. 100–647, title I, § 1016(b), Nov. 10, 1988 , 102 Stat. 3575.

    For includibility of provisions comparable to section 2055(e)(3) of this title in this section, see section 514(b) of Pub. L. 95–600, set out as a note under section 2055 of this title.


    Heinkel He P.1078B

    The various fighter programs of wartime Germany in World War 2 produced a bevy of fantastical design initiatives. Heinkel developed a line of jet-powered fighters following the P.1078 project designation beginning with the P.1078A, a rather conventionally-arranged development featuring swept-back wings cranked upwards near the wingtips, a nose-mounted intake for aspirating the single jet engine and seating for one a lightly-framed canopy offering good vision. The tail was of a traditional design sporting a single rudder fin and low-set tailplanes. A tricycle undercarriage was fully retractable and powered.

    The evolution of the P.1078A became the asymmetrical P.1078B, a tailless concept interceptor utilizing the same 40-degree wing sweep, single engine installation, powered undercarriage and single-seat cockpit. However, this design proved a vast departure from the preceding offering in that it lacked a tail component meaning that no vertical or horizontal tailplanes were fitted. Additionally, the fuselage incorporated a dual-gondola arrangement in which the cockpit was set to a portside gondola protruding from the forward fuselage and a armament (with radar emplacement) was set to a starboard side gondola. This arrangement allowed for a shorter fuselage length to be used. The jet engine would be aspirated through an intake opening located between the two gondolas at the front of the fuselage. One other design feature of note was the nose leg landing gear was situated under the starboard side gondola. Power was to be served through an HeS 011 series turbojet engine while armament was to be 2 x 30mm MK 108 cannons. Onboard radar would have allowed the P.1078B to function as a night fighter. Projected performance included a maximum speed of 1,025 kmh (637 mph).

    At the outset of P.1078B design, the aircraft was intended as an all-wing aircraft to incorporate the smallest possible fuselage available. The fuselage would be used to house the powerplant, cockpit, avionics and armament. The large surface area also improved internal space for fuel stores. Heinkel engineers presented the concept to Ernst Heinkel himself though it was greeted with mixed opinion. Some qualities, such as the cranked wings, proved worthy of follow up research while other qualities, such as the twin-nose layout, proved rather limiting for a fighter pilot trusting his eyes more than anything (the starboard side gondola would have obscured the right side view from the cockpit).

    As such, the P.1078B only ever evolved in paper form and was never made ready for prime time testing nor production. The P.1078 line appeared in one more iteration as the P.1078C fighter form - another tailless interceptor design with a stout fuselage, single engine installation and swept-back wings with revised bend. The end of the war in Europe in May of 1945 signaled the end of all development of the P.1078 projects.


    Watch the video: Хенкель He-177 Грайф. Немецкий стратегический бомбардировщик.