PDA

View Full Version : Why, why Ho229 cannot carry any bombload?



Bang_D
10-11-2006, 05:07 AM
Obviously 229 is not an ideal dogfight fighter due to its extremely poor stability. but it can be a very brilliant bomber/attack plane(In fact it was a fighter-bomber!)but in game it cannot carry any extra ordiance... Damn it! Will it be fixed in the following update?

Schmouddle-WT
10-11-2006, 07:00 AM
Why?

Because Ho229 neither went into production nor ever flew IRL.

Say Got(c)ha! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Tater-SW-
10-11-2006, 08:14 AM
LOL. While we're on the subject, where are some allied flying saucer fighter bombers armed with death rays and nukes?

tater

Bang_D
10-11-2006, 08:23 AM
Actually it was designed to carry over 1,000kg of bombloads.
later Goering stated in prison: "If 3rd reich could last 1 more year, the flying-wings may lead us to victory."

Platypus_1.JaVA
10-11-2006, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Bang_D:
Actually it was designed to carry over 1,000kg of bombloads.
later Goering stated in prison: "If 3rd reich could last 1 more year, the flying-wings may lead us to victory."

Yeah right...

That was not the only BS stated by him http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Anyways, the Go-229 did fly. Just some test flights but at least it has more right to be in the sim then the Lerche UFO that will come with the '46 add-on.

Tater-SW-
10-11-2006, 08:40 AM
Sure it could have. LOL.

Of course they'd only have enough fuel to fly a few sorties per day (there were tons of Me262s around, but the most that ever flew in one day was ~20 sorties---for lack of fuel).

Also, they'd have had to have "lead us to victory" through a once a month mushroom cloud someplace in Germany.

tater

berg417448
10-11-2006, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Bang_D:
Obviously 229 is not an ideal dogfight fighter due to its extremely poor stability. but it can be a very brilliant bomber/attack plane(In fact it was a fighter-bomber!)but in game it cannot carry any extra ordiance... Damn it! Will it be fixed in the following update?


Go-229/Horton IX Stability and Control:

The H IX V.1 was flown by Walter Horten, Scheidhauer and Ziller. Scheidhauer did most of the flying (30 hours) at Oranienberg, Horten and Ziller flew for about 10 hours.

D.V.L. instrumented the aircraft for drag and directional stability measurements. No drag results were obtained because of trouble with the instrument installation €" apparently an incidence measuring pole was fitted which could be lowered in flight and glide path angle was obtained from the difference between attitude and incidence measurements. One day they landed without retracting the pole. Directional oscillation tests were completed successfully and an advance report was issued (10 pages of typescript) by Pinsker and Lugner fo D.V.L.

The essence of the results was that the lateral oscillation was of abnormally long period €" about 8 sec. At 250 kph and damped out in about 5 cycles. At low speeds the oscillation was of €œdutch roll€ type but at high speed very little banking occurred. Many fierce arguments took place at D.V.L. on desirable directional stability characteristics , the Hortens naturally joining the €œlong period€ school of thought. They claimed that the long period would enable the pilot to damp out any directional swing with rudder and keep perfectly steady for shooting. It was found that by using both drag rudders simultaneously when aiming, the aircraft could be kept very steady with high damping of any residual oscillation.

Lateral control was apparently quite good with very little adverse yaw.

Longitudinal control and stability was more like a conventional aircraft than any of the preceding Horten types and there was complete absence of the longitudinal "wiggle" usually produced by flying through gusts. Tuft tests were done to check the stall but the photographs were not good enough for much to be learned. Handling was said to be good at the stall, the aircraft sinking on an even keel. There seems to be some doubt, however, as to whether a full stall had ever taken place since full tests with varying CG and yaw had not been done. Although the stick was pulled hard back, the CG may have been too far forward to give a genuine stall.

Directional stability was said by Scheidhauer to be very good, as good as a normal aircraft. He did not discuss this statement in detail as he was obviously very hazy about what he meant by good stability and could give very little precise information about the type and period of the motion compared with normal aircraft.

Scheidhauer had flown the Me 163 as a glider and was obviously very impressed with it; he was confident enough to do rolls and loops on his first flight. We asked him how the H IX V.1 compared with the 163; he was reluctant to give an answer and said the two were not comparable because of the difference in size. He finally admitted that he preferred the 163 which was more maneuverable, and a delight to fly (he called it €œspielzeug€).
The H IX V.2 with jet engines was flown only by Ziller and completed about 2 hours flying before its crash. This occurred after an engine failure €" the pilot undershot, tried to stretch the glide and stalled. One wing must have dropped, for the aircraft went in sideways and Ziller was killed. Before the crash a demonstration had been given against an Me 262; Horten said the H IX proved faster and more maneuverable, with a steeper and faster climb.

In spite of the crash, Horten thought the single engine performance satisfactory and said the close spacing of the jets made single engined flying relatively simple.

http://www.twitt.org/Farnborough_05.html#top