PDA

View Full Version : Horten 229 V3



Uppiski
06-24-2009, 03:27 PM
Here is a very interesting program that will be on the national geographic channel this week end concerning the Horten 229

http://channel.nationalgeograp...verview#tab-Overview (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/hitler-s-stealth-fighter-3942/Overview#tab-Overview)
Uppy

Gibbage1
06-24-2009, 03:54 PM
That show will be a big lol.

"If Nazi engineers had had more time, would this jet have ultimately changed the outcome of the war?"

With what pilots? With what fuel? By the time the V3 was flying, Germany was in her death throws. The few "super stealth fighters" they could get up would not of made any difference. These things would of needed to be flying in 42-43 in great numbers to really alter the war. Plus it was not fully stealth. The engine intakes were a big pickup on radar. Thats why on the B-2 the intakes are hidden above the body.

But if these loons even try to say the Go-229 had any relevance on the B-2, they are more bad ---- crazy then I thought. Or just totally ignorant of the YB-35 program.

WTE_Galway
06-24-2009, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
That show will be a big lol.

"If Nazi engineers had had more time, would this jet have ultimately changed the outcome of the war?"

With what pilots? With what fuel? By the time the V3 was flying, Germany was in her death throws. The few "super stealth fighters" they could get up would not of made any difference. These things would of needed to be flying in 42-43 in great numbers to really alter the war. Plus it was not fully stealth. The engine intakes were a big pickup on radar. Thats why on the B-2 the intakes are hidden above the body.

But if these loons even try to say the Go-229 had any relevance on the B-2, they are more bad ---- crazy then I thought. Or just totally ignorant of the YB-35 program.


Since when has the truth had anything to do with television documentaries ?

Blottogg
06-24-2009, 06:56 PM
I just saw this mentioned over at the AOPA website. It'll be an interesting program, and as an engineering geek I hope they'll get into the specifics of how they built the mockup, and what radars (modern or period) they tested with.

As Gib mentioned though, it's all a moot point. Resources aside, these things were intended to intercept bombers, and as such weren't flown into Allied radar coverage. They would have avoided Allied radar detection via distance instead of low cross-section. Though I suppose if they were actually LO, they could have been used for night raids, but then they'd need either radar (to shoot down RAF bombers forming up or returning) or bombs.

I'm guessing the tests will show that they were detectable by radar, though their lack of surface area would help reduce detection range. The surface may have been wood, but a lot of the underlying structure was metal, as were the engines. Even in the days before Doppler processing, which would have lit up over all those moving compressor blades, the motors were big, reflective chunks of metal. Sort of like the Mossie's radiators, though that aircraft was supposed to be hard to detect on radar, too. In the case of the Mossie, I'm betting the low altitude of their typical operation made them more difficult to spot than their wooden construction.

In any case, I'll be interesting to watch. Thanks for posting, Uppy.

Gibbage1
06-24-2009, 08:02 PM
I find it interesting they made it only of wood. The wings on the real V3 was wood, yes, but the body was a steel tube and aluminum skin. I also wonder of they put any metal in the intakes. Metal has a much better radar return then wood.

Freiwillige
06-24-2009, 09:45 PM
The theory that the Go-229 had anything to do with the b-2 design comes from the fact that the Boeing design team went to the only remaining Go-229 in the world and studied it. In my opinion it was more inspirational than anything in the B-2 design just as it was to the YB-35.

Only Boeing designers no for sure and they aint talking.

ACE-OF-ACES
06-24-2009, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
The theory that the Go-229 had anything to do with the b-2 design comes from the fact that the Boeing design team went to the only remaining Go-229 in the world and studied it. In my opinion it was more inspirational than anything in the B-2 design just as it was to the YB-35.

Only Boeing designers no for sure and they aint talking.
That is a cute story about Boeing..

But what does it have to do wtih the fact that Northrop build the B2 an YB-35?

As for the B2 and the rest of Northrop flying wings..

I would like to meet anyone that thinks Northrop (who was building flying wings since the 1920s) needed to look at the Horton flying wing to build the B2..

In that I have a real deal for them!

I have a bridge for sale at a very low price..

Here is a picture of it..

http://www.visitingdc.com/images/golden-gate-bridge-picture.jpg

Interested?

Gibbage1
06-24-2009, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
The theory that the Go-229 had anything to do with the b-2 design comes from the fact that the Boeing design team went to the only remaining Go-229 in the world and studied it. In my opinion it was more inspirational than anything in the B-2 design just as it was to the YB-35.

Only Boeing designers no for sure and they aint talking.

Interestingly, I spoke with 3 members of the B-2 design team, and yes they did go visit the Go-229 at the Smithsonian, but from there exact quote "We didnt learn anything new"

There are 0 design aspects in the Gotha that was carried over to the B-2. The B-35 on the other hand, had MANY MANY of the same design features. Both the B-2 and B-35 had 173 foot wingspan. Both used the same split-aileron controls Northrop pioneered (Gotha used air brakes). YB-49 developed a computer system to stabilize the aircraft in flight, a problem with the flying wing in general. There are also very small features in the B-2, like little wind damns in front of the bomb bay, to disturb the air for the bombs to drop. If not, the bomb will "skip" on the fast slip-stream generated under the wing. This is all lessons learned from the B-35 project.

Freiwillige
06-24-2009, 11:01 PM
Well I thought Boeing made the B-2.
Anyways like I said I doubted that they could get much other than inspiration from the Go-229. No need to be rude Ace-of-Aces.

PanzerAce
06-25-2009, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:

YB-49 developed a computer system to stabilize the aircraft in flight, a problem with the flying wing in general.

Interesting that the Hortens never really ran into that problem, and neither did Lippisch for that matter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hell, compared to the Hortens and Lippisch, Northrop was a dilettante when it came to radical designs. The Hortens started working on true flying wings several years before northrop.

While the stealthiness of the 229 *has* been blown way out of proportion, I would argue that it was the work of the Horton brothers that allowed stuff like the B-2 to go forward, since it actually *worked* (unlike many of the Northrop flying wings [though, like the 229, those also seemed to have had more than their fair share of bad luck])

Gammelpreusse
06-25-2009, 01:57 AM
Hmm. Lots of opinions in here, no source or credible link whatsoever by anybody.

Appears as if this aircraft produces more questions then it answers.

Let's see if this documentary is in line with all the other flat uniformative NG stuff or actually produces something new, before the gentlemen in here start hitting their heads at each other over nothing.

Unquestionable, however, the Ho certainly wins the "cool sinister beautiful" look contest http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Kettenhunde
06-25-2009, 02:02 AM
Appears as if this plane produces more questions then it answers.


Exactly. If the sentiments quoted below were true:


exact quote "We didnt learn anything new"


I don't think so much money would have been spent on the replica to answer those questions.

That is just me though. IMHO, the Horten brothers are some of the engineering greats of our time.

All the best,

Crumpp

M_Gunz
06-25-2009, 08:38 AM
I'm pretty sure that I've seen at least one picture of Otto Lillienthal with working flying wings.
For all that matters, I've made rectangular flying wing paper planes that flew stable since 1968.

berg417448
06-25-2009, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by PanzerAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:

YB-49 developed a computer system to stabilize the aircraft in flight, a problem with the flying wing in general.

Interesting that the Hortens never really ran into that problem, and neither did Lippisch for that matter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hell, compared to the Hortens and Lippisch, Northrop was a dilettante when it came to radical designs. The Hortens started working on true flying wings several years before northrop.

While the stealthiness of the 229 *has* been blown way out of proportion, I would argue that it was the work of the Horton brothers that allowed stuff like the B-2 to go forward, since it actually *worked* (unlike many of the Northrop flying wings [though, like the 229, those also seemed to have had more than their fair share of bad luck]) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, in a very strange way, it was Northrop's work which allowed work on the Horton's flying wings to go forward.

The Horten brothers were helped in their bid for
German government support when Northrop patents for the N-1M appeared in US Patent Office's "Official Gazette" in May 1941, and then in the International Aeronautical journal
"Interavia" in November, 1941.



“ From 1939 to 1942 the brothers were again in the Luftwaffe and Walter, by devious means managed to get an H IV (a new high aspect ratio sailplane) build at Konigsberg where he was stationed. This clandestine construction was discovered by his commander and Walter was sacked.

In 1942 Nortrhop’s work in America attracted attention in Germany and Walter was ordered to restart development. Luftwaffe Sonder Kommando 9 was set up with 200 men, factory premises and government grants to the tune of L500,000 for getting machinery. Headquarters were at Gottingen and the Peschke works at Minden was used to build Horten designs. (This was a furniture factory which turned over to aircraft components during the war years.) Many other dispersed workshops and test and design groups were organized. Construction of the VII was authorized and it was flown successfully in 1943.”

http://www.twitt.org/Farnborough.html

Gibbage1
06-25-2009, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by PanzerAce:
While the stealthiness of the 229 *has* been blown way out of proportion, I would argue that it was the work of the Horton brothers that allowed stuff like the B-2 to go forward, since it actually *worked* (unlike many of the Northrop flying wings [though, like the 229, those also seemed to have had more than their fair share of bad luck])

I dont understand this at all. How did the Go-229 *worked*? The only powered prototype flew twice before it crashed. The production model never flew. The YB35 and YB-49 had many many hours on both. The research into flying wings for stealth started from the discovery of ATC logs saying that detecting the YB-49 on radar was impossible. Then, they felt it was an annoyance, not a benefit. The Go-229 never flew enough to be detected by radar, so its capability's were never truly known. I would consider a huge 173' bomber to be stealthy a lot more difficult to achieve then a small little fighter with wooden wings.

Gammelpreusse
06-25-2009, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PanzerAce:
While the stealthiness of the 229 *has* been blown way out of proportion, I would argue that it was the work of the Horton brothers that allowed stuff like the B-2 to go forward, since it actually *worked* (unlike many of the Northrop flying wings [though, like the 229, those also seemed to have had more than their fair share of bad luck])

I dont understand this at all. How did the Go-229 *worked*? The only powered prototype flew twice before it crashed. The production model never flew. The YB35 and YB-49 had many many hours on both. The research into flying wings for stealth started from the discovery of ATC logs saying that detecting the YB-49 on radar was impossible. Then, they felt it was an annoyance, not a benefit. The Go-229 never flew enough to be detected by radar, so its capability's were never truly known. I would consider a huge 173' bomber to be stealthy a lot more difficult to achieve then a small little fighter with wooden wings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stealth was considered valuable in WW2 already.
You may want to conduct a google search for "Tarnmatte", an anti Radar coating developed in Germany from midwar on, mainly with U-Boat Periscopes in mind.
Check "Encyclopedia of military technology and innovation" by Steven Bull, page 248
"Stealth
The basic idea of "stealth" camouflage from radar, or reduced radar signature, is much older then is commonly realized. As early as the 1930s pioneer Watson Watt had noted it might be useful for bombers to reduce their radar reflectivity. Engeineers similarly observed that targets would be detected at greater or lesser ranges depending on the type of aircraft and its angele to the radar. While the Allies produced chaff to disuise formations, the German Horten brothers set about designing an aircraft that would be difficult for radar to detect at all. Their Horten HoIX had a steal tube subframe but was mainly of plywood, whtin which was dandwhiched glue, sawdust, and characoal-the charcoal being intended to absorb radar waves. An attempt was also made to shield German submarine snorkel tubes from airborne radar using Tarnmatte synthethic rubber."

Interesting info bout the Ho as well. How useful that plane with a steel tube basis really was is debateable. But from all what I heared from official sides so far, the intention was there.

Besides, I have great doubts about the Air Force considering a big bad bomber beeing stealthy as an annoyance. After the expiriences in WW2, especially with Radar, and the Cold war in it's beginning stages, this either shows extreme incompetence by the US or you must confuse something. I'd be thankful for some kind of source for that?

Gibbage1
06-25-2009, 04:05 PM
The question is, how well did it work, if at all? If it worked well, why didnt they just paint normal aircraft in this charcoal mixture? The answer is simple. It didnt work well enough. Even today, the advanced coatings on todays aircraft absorb about 10% of the radar. I doubt that something as simple as charcoal would give as good a result as todays coatings, so your looking at less then 10%.

Gammelpreusse
06-25-2009, 04:12 PM
Pity, the only thing I found about the effectiveness of "Tarnmatte" is this

Tarnmatte This was a radar absorbing material used to coat snorkel heads to shield them from allied radar. It consisted of a compound of synthetic rubber and iron oxide and was claimed to have 90 percent effectiveness in reducing radar signature.

http://www.uboataces.com/sonar-coating.shtml

Given todays coating compared to todays Radar sets I have no problem believing your numbers. I am not able to judge the effectiveness of early Radars used in WW2 in relation to this Tarnmatte stuff, however. Neither have I any idea about the reasons for not using this coating on Aircraft. Nevertheless, there are a couple reasons I can think of. Weight, structure, flexebility, temperature resistance, but we'd really need to know more about it's properties.

Waldo.Pepper
06-25-2009, 04:19 PM
It wasn't put on planes because it was heavy. It didn't (in practice) work well on the protuberances of U-boats because it was easily degraded by exposure to salt water and sunshine.

Gammelpreusse
06-25-2009, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
It wasn't put on planes because it was heavy. It didn't (in practice) work well on the protuberances of U-boats because it was easily degraded by exposure to salt water and sunshine.

I am propably wrong here, but was that not more of a problem for Alberich and the adhesives used?

Gibbage1
06-25-2009, 05:29 PM
So if it absorbed 90% of radar, why didnt they use it on other things, like ships? It just seems rather stupid that IF this was such a great thing, why didnt they use it more? Humans tend to see something good, and copy it and improve on it. 90% seems way too remarkable to be just dropped like a bad habit.

ACE-OF-ACES
06-25-2009, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
Actually, in a very strange way, it was Northrop's work which allowed work on the Horton's flying wings to go forward.

The Horten brothers were helped in their bid for
German government support when Northrop patents for the N-1M appeared in US Patent Office's "Official Gazette" in May 1941, and then in the International Aeronautical journal
"Interavia" in November, 1941.



“ From 1939 to 1942 the brothers were again in the Luftwaffe and Walter, by devious means managed to get an H IV (a new high aspect ratio sailplane) build at Konigsberg where he was stationed. This clandestine construction was discovered by his commander and Walter was sacked.

In 1942 Nortrhop’s work in America attracted attention in Germany and Walter was ordered to restart development. Luftwaffe Sonder Kommando 9 was set up with 200 men, factory premises and government grants to the tune of L500,000 for getting machinery. Headquarters were at Gottingen and the Peschke works at Minden was used to build Horten designs. (This was a furniture factory which turned over to aircraft components during the war years.) Many other dispersed workshops and test and design groups were organized. Construction of the VII was authorized and it was flown successfully in 1943.”

http://www.twitt.org/Farnborough.html
Interesting.

So in essence this plane didn't produce more questions than answers, except to answer the question of just how many of Northrop patents ended up in the design of the Go229. Which would explain why upon inspection the Northrop team reported they learned nothing new from the Go229. Same thing happened to Goddard, upon inspection of a V2 rocket he had identified a lot of his rocket patents from the 20s,30s, and 40s were used on the V2. Yet during the 1950 and 1960s Japan got labled as the country that was good at coping other designs. Looks like Japan learned something from the Germans during the 1940s, how to make use of US patents! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Waldo.Pepper
06-25-2009, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
I am propably wrong here, but was that not more of a problem for Alberich and the adhesives used?

I am so sure that you are aware that Alberich was primarily intended to counter ASDIC (Sonar) emissions not Radar emissions that I hesitate even mentioning it.

But even so, it would seem that the environment took a heavy toll on all coatings whether they were intended to counter Radar or ASDIC (Sonar). Consider he following image and associated caption.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/stumpf2.jpg

Even if they (the German scientific/technical community/industry had managed to solve the problems of environmental degradation, it still would have not mattered. As they persisted (quite rightly) in equipping those boats of their U-Boat fleet that they could with other pieces of equipment which proved to he highly reflective and excellent targets for Allied Radars. These would have negated any progress any coating would have achieved.

As for the rest of the topic ...

I can't really understand why we need three threads for one TV program. Also without trying to be too mean about it, it is a little hard to know where to begin commenting on all the minor things that are wrong in this thread.

It is very nearly impossible to discuss something this technical in the forum format. That is why books are written and large testing facilities made to find out how (even modern Radars) perform.

So here are some thoughts.


Originally posted by Blottogg:
what radars (modern or period) they tested with.

The program description mentions that they tested it against both historical and contemporary sets. But it is only an hour long show. So expect it to be necessarily superficial.


Originally posted by Blottogg:
these things were intended to intercept bombers, and as such weren't flown into Allied radar coverage.

After the Allied landing on the continent they would most certainly have been the targets of Allied radars. The Allies brought several different sets with them in their advance through Europe. To say nothing about Airborne sets in both the USAAC and RAF bomber formations.


Originally posted by Blottogg:
Even in the days before Doppler processing, which would have lit up over all those moving compressor blades, the motors were big, reflective chunks of metal.

WW2 WERE the days of Doppler processing! Though certainly not the way that you had meant. After the RAf was cleared to use Window, the Germans modified their equipment to detect RAF bombers based upon the the relative speed compared to the clouds of Window falling.

"A suitable device, called Wurzlaus, invented within two weeks after the alarm, suppressed the unshifted signal that came from the cloud of dipoles, which made it easier for the operator to see the unsuppressed echoes from the target. It allowed some degree of success in distinguishing bombers from aluminum foil, and in skilled hands under the right conditions this restored much of Flak's accuracy. It worked on the approach, where there was a Doppler shift to shorter wavelengths, and on the departure, where the shift was to longer wavelengths, but failed, of course, in the important mid-course region when the bombers flew at right angles to the radar line-of-sight and where the Doppler shift was too small for discrimination."

If that is not extraordinary enough for you. The Germans also conceived of a way to discriminate the bombers from the clouds of Window, based on the ...

"use of an audible signal produced on the reflected pulses by the propellers and general vibration of airframes, an effect noted by Lorenz investigators when observing a windmill in experiments just before the war. The radar receiver output was passed through an audio-frequency filter that suppressed the pulse-repetition frequency before transmitting it to a pair of headphones; the operator then attempted to 'hear' the airplane. The device, called Nurnberg, was manufactured between September and December 1943.

WW2 was the days when all kinds of Radar devices and techniques that we usually only associate with more modern eras. Sixty plus years ago, there were some clever people making amazing gizmo's out of vacuum tubes.

Among them, [which saw service.]

AWACS. (Done by the British mounted on a Wellington.)

Anti-Radiation Strike missions with specialized detection equipment, targeting enemy Radars. (Done by Americans in the PTO with B-25's and the British in ETO with Typhoons.)

Counter - battery radars. Targeting V2 launching sites. (British with modified OBOE sets.)

Detection of vehicle columns for targeting by aerial or artillery assets. (American with SCR-587 Anti-Aircraft Radars.)

--

Lastly and very quickly. Against a B2, a "WW2 era Radar" would (likely/in theory) perform better against it that a contemporary set. This is largely due to the longer wavelength used during the time period. However, it would be bigger, less mobile and easier to destroy. Also it would not be precise enough to down it with a missile. But interceptors could likely be vectored to its presence.

In short all this arm-chair Generaling is kind of premature. We shall have to wait for the program to see what they did and what they say.



Edit typo.

deepo_HP
06-25-2009, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
It is very nearly impossible to discuss something this technical in the forum format.
probably true, but i would anyway like to see it going on. so far i know near to nothing on radar and what exactly is involved in 'stealth' techniques - like i was quite wondering, why at a sudden 'alberich' came up, whom i connected only to the ronery dwarf who built the ring of nibelungs.

sure, complex topics hardly fit to some forum-lines, but such threads are worth nevertheless and offer at least the proper words for additional searching (like 'alberich' or 'doppler')



Originally posted by ACE-OF-ACES:
Yet during the 1950 and 1960s Japan got labled as the country that was good at coping other designs. Looks like Japan learned something from the Germans during the 1940s, how to make use of US patents! well... as long as no out-of-the-blue, nation-flavoured comments are thrown in.
off-topic, questionable and as usual, many-of-names!

Kettenhunde
06-25-2009, 11:33 PM
How did the Go-229 *worked*?

As a design it worked well, irregardless of the fact circumstances did not allow for production or refinement.

Despite the racist comments contained in this thread, the Horten brothers are considered to be aeronautical engineering greats.

Kettenhunde
06-25-2009, 11:53 PM
After an expenditure of about US$250,000 and 2,500 man-hours Northrop's Ho-229 reproduction was tested at the company's classified radar cross-section (RCS) test range at Tejon, California

I highly doubt Northrop Grumman agrees with there was nothing left to learn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229


Interestingly, I spoke with 3 members of the B-2 design team, and yes they did go visit the Go-229 at the Smithsonian, but from there exact quote "We didnt learn anything new"


I am curious as to why 3 members of a classified design team and a major defense contractor would mention anything to you about their project, their company’s interest, or the progress of their work?

All the best,

Crumpp

Freiwillige
06-26-2009, 12:05 AM
I thought the war ended, You would think that 65 years later we would be able to reflect and discuss without all the Nationalism and Flag waving. Sure its good to be proud of your national acheivments, But when you try to distort or take away from anothers it gets to be much. Now with that said, Grumman made some awsome designs, So did the Horton brothers.

The Germans were actively persuing basic stealth technology, Its fact!

Why did they not use more of it on more things was a common question asked thus far. Everybody knows the answer and it is not rocket science.
They ran out of Time! The GO-229 came at the very end of the war. Albricht for the Subs came towards the end. Its not to discredit the German engineers who came up with these things and alot of them were "Borrowed" by the East and the West after the war.

It amounted to the Greatest transfer of knowledge and Patents in history in 1945.

The west especially got rich off of "Borrowed" German Patents in the Famous "1946 patent heist"
German intelectual property ceased to exsist and it didnt matter one bit if it was military, industrial or commercial or private.
Germany patent offices were simply looted.

Gammelpreusse
06-26-2009, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So if it absorbed 90% of radar, why didnt they use it on other things, like ships? It just seems rather stupid that IF this was such a great thing, why didnt they use it more? Humans tend to see something good, and copy it and improve on it. 90% seems way too remarkable to be just dropped like a bad habit.

I have no idea, Gibbage. I am here because I am looking for answers, not because I have them. Throwing in vague assumptions as final answers is bit unsatisfactory for my taste.

Gammelpreusse
06-26-2009, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
I am propably wrong here, but was that not more of a problem for Alberich and the adhesives used?

I am so sure that you are aware that Alberich was primarily intended to counter ASDIC (Sonar) emissions not Radar emissions that I hesitate even mentioning it.

But even so, it would seem that the environment took a heavy toll on all coatings whether they were intended to counter Radar or ASDIC (Sonar). Consider he following image and associated caption.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/stumpf2.jpg

Even if they (the German scientific/technical community/industry had managed to solve the problems of environmental degradation, it still would have not mattered. As they persisted (quite rightly) in equipping those boats of their U-Boat fleet that they could with other pieces of equipment which proved to he highly reflective and excellent targets for Allied Radars. These would have negated any progress any coating would have achieved.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the answer, Waldo! Yes, I certainly was aware that Alberich was Anti SONAR coating. It's only that I always read about degration in regards to Alberich, not Tarnmatte, though it really makes sense that Tarnmatte was subject to the same problems.

Gibbage1
06-26-2009, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
As a design it worked well, irregardless of the fact circumstances did not allow for production or refinement.

Despite the racist comments contained in this thread, the Horten brothers are considered to be aeronautical engineering greats.

Quite a statement considering the aircraft only flew twice, for maybe an hour total, before it crashed on the 2nd day.

As for how I came into contact with 3 Northrop engineers, its simple really. Chino, Planes of Fame. They restored the Northrop N9M, and its been well documented that members of the B2 team helped with the restoration. THey have a monthly symposium covering different subjects. One of them happened to be experamental aircraft, and the feature was a flight of the N9M. Plus, a few test pilots, and some people from NG came out to talk about the N9M and its relation to the B-2 program. After the talk, as they were prepping the N9M, I spoke with the 3 engineers. Had a great talk with them about the Gotha myth. All 3 of them confirmed they did visit the Go-229, but again, all 3 said they learned nothing new, and not a single design aspect from the Gotha was used on the B-2. They already had all the research from the B-35 program. The only thing thats even remotly close is the location of the exhaust, on top of the wings surface. Its used for different purposes on the two aircraft, (IR masking in the B2) and that aspect was in-place well before there visit. I also learned of many other aspects, such as the air brakes. How would I know of those without speaking to the engineers? Its not every day common knowledge, and its not something that can be found on most photo's since they retract. But during bomb testing of the B-35 and B-49, they found that the bombs literally SKIPPED from the high pressure fast moving air flowing under the bomb bay. Again, something they learned from the B-35, since the Go-229 had no bomb bay at all.

Here you can see the air brakes in there retracted position.

http://www.ausairpower.net/B-2A-GAM-113-Bay.jpg

I know its asking a LOT for people to just "trust me", but what more can I do? There was 1 other community member there with me, Tagert, but I dont know if he still post's here.

Simply put, the Go-229 inspiring the B-2 is the biggest peace of modern day propaganda. Its a myth. So far nobody has ID'ed ANY design aspect from the Gotha thats in the B-2, but I have named about 5 from the B-35 thats in the B-2. The proof is right there. Accept it or not.

Gammelpreusse
06-26-2009, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
As a design it worked well, irregardless of the fact circumstances did not allow for production or refinement.

Despite the racist comments contained in this thread, the Horten brothers are considered to be aeronautical engineering greats.

Quite a statement considering the aircraft only flew twice, for maybe an hour total, before it crashed on the 2nd day.

As for how I came into contact with 3 Northrop engineers, its simple really. Chino, Planes of Fame. They restored the Northrop N9M, and its been well documented that members of the B2 team helped with the restoration. THey have a monthly symposium covering different subjects. One of them happened to be experamental aircraft, and the feature was a flight of the N9M. Plus, a few test pilots, and some people from NG came out to talk about the N9M and its relation to the B-2 program. After the talk, as they were prepping the N9M, I spoke with the 3 engineers. Had a great talk with them about the Gotha myth. All 3 of them confirmed they did visit the Go-229, but again, all 3 said they learned nothing new, and not a single design aspect from the Gotha was used on the B-2. They already had all the research from the B-35 program. The only thing thats even remotly close is the location of the exhaust, on top of the wings surface. Its used for different purposes on the two aircraft, (IR masking in the B2) and that aspect was in-place well before there visit. I also learned of many other aspects, such as the air brakes. How would I know of those without speaking to the engineers? Its not every day common knowledge, and its not something that can be found on most photo's since they retract. But during bomb testing of the B-35 and B-49, they found that the bombs literally SKIPPED from the high pressure fast moving air flowing under the bomb bay. Again, something they learned from the B-35, since the Go-229 had no bomb bay at all.

Here you can see the air brakes in there retracted position.

http://www.ausairpower.net/B-2A-GAM-113-Bay.jpg

I know its asking a LOT for people to just "trust me", but what more can I do? There was 1 other community member there with me, Tagert, but I dont know if he still post's here.

Simply put, the Go-229 inspiring the B-2 is the biggest peace of modern day propaganda. Its a myth. So far nobody has ID'ed ANY design aspect from the Gotha thats in the B-2, but I have named about 5 from the B-35 thats in the B-2. The proof is right there. Accept it or not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The odd thing here is, that the B2 <-> Go229 connection is mostly stated in american sources.

It's written in books, documentaries, the net.
No german, japanese, british or whatever said so. Only here and then comes in a forum member and says otherwise. You have to admit it is hard to take these private posts more serious then those other sources, especially as no link or other source is presented to underline these findings. Add to that the slur of german and japanese engineering on a nationalistic basis by some odd hillbilly and the suspicion arises that a couple folks are not interested in the subject at all but the interest in preserving the americans invented stealth reputation nowadays.

The notion that the Ho 229 prototype crashed belongs to this. What is omitted here is that the V2 crashed because of an engine fire, not because of an inherent airframe problem. Nevertheless you imply it to be an aerodynamic failure. The same with the Tarnmatte coating, throwing in some wild speculations without any scientific basis.
Why do you do that? If you already know the answer for yourself and now just need proof to verify it, please, become a religious person. But let others speculate and dig without trying to disrupt these efforts. It's really getting bothersome.

That said, I will trust you in your talk with the Northrup engineers and keep it in my mind as one fact amongst a lot others surrounding this confusing topic.

Gibbage1
06-26-2009, 03:15 AM
I never said it was a failure. I only stated its rather presumptious to say the aircraft had such good flying characteristics from just 3 hours (if even) of total flight time. It takes a LOT more time to get a feel for an aircraft, months to even years. There is 0 flight test data on the Gotha, so why do people constantly give it such good flying characteristics? Thats whats puzzling.

Waldo.Pepper
06-26-2009, 03:17 AM
Posted by Noncrafter here...

http://www.secretprojects.co.u...p/topic,3583.45.html (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3583.45.html)


I’m an advanced projects engineer/manager at Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems. I was the guy who introduced producer/director Michael Jorgensen to the Northrop Grumman team and helped convince our management to pursue and fund the Ho-229 documentary project. I’ve been directly involved with this project from start to finish and I appear in the show. I’d like to address some of the concerns you guys have raised in this forum.

A number of you have expressed concern that the radar cross section (RCS) testing of the constructed Ho-229 full-scale model is invalid for various reasons, including that fact that the model does not have an internal tubular truss structure, metallic engines, control surfaces, etc. This assertion is simply not true. I’m assuming that most of you are not low observables engineers, but please forgive me if any of the following is tutorial.

At this point in time, the aerospace industry’s low observables (LO) engineering community has considerable experience under its collective belt. Over the decades, countless structures have been illuminated across all possible radar frequency ranges. This includes full-up aircraft and models, down to individual parts, representing all forms of aircraft construction methods and material utilization developed since the Wright Brothers. LO computational techniques have been considerably refined and validated in comparison to empirical testing results.

Before we started the build, we were able to inspect the actual Ho-229 in the Smithsonian Garber facility (an awesome experience!). We were also able to do some testing of the actual aircraft’s surfaces to determine their electromagnetic properties, which you’ll see in the show. In addition, we had at our disposal a comprehensive package of wonderful Ho-229 layout drawings prepared by Arthur Bentley, and Mr. Bentley himself was a consultant to the project.

So, my point is that when we sat down to figure out how to build the Ho-229 RCS test model, we already had an excellent detailed technical understanding of this aircraft and how to effectively simulate it for the purpose of determining its electromagnetic properties.

We discussed the possibility of reconstructing the truss structure, but that would be cost prohibitive and our senior LO engineers determined that it wasn’t really necessary. To obtain the kind of first-order results we were looking for, it would be sufficient to build the model from high-grade plywood with carefully targeted applications of various conductive coatings internally and externally to simulate the interior configuration. Specialized paints and coatings are the key!! We have proven on various projects that this technique works, and that’s the way we proceeded with the Ho-229.

Another key aspect in making the construction method decisions was radar frequency. We studied the British Chain Home air defense radar systems used throughout WW II. We concluded that the use of VHF, UHF and L-band frequencies would be representative for our testing. At these relatively low long-wavelength frequencies, small details on the test model would not be visible or contribute significantly to the overall signature, including the gaps in control surfaces. Also, the coating methodology described above would be very effective at accurately simulating this aircraft at these frequencies without the need to recreate the interior features in detail. To keep things simple, we tested the aircraft in a nominal straight and level flight configuration, which would represent its best radar signature. It would have been nice to include moveable control surfaces on the model, but that was beyond the available budget.

Keep in mind that we built a test model for a one hour TV documentary, not for developing and deploying a real combat aircraft! All we needed in this case was enough engineering fidelity to achieve first order results enabling us to reach some top-level conclusions. I believe our project priorities were properly balanced with this goal in mind, and of course, within the available budget.

As you all know, the Ho-229 was not designed with stealth as a primary design goal. The aircraft has a few obvious stealth “Achilles’ Heels” such as the exposed engine faces. However, a flying wing configuration can nonetheless have inherently stealthy properties compared to conventional aircraft even if LO was not a primary design consideration. This was amply demonstrated by Northrop’s YB-49A. Regarding the Ho-229’s RCS performance, we chose to not get into radar signature reduction specifics in the documentary. Rather, we describe the Ho-229’s capabilities in terms of the resulting reduction in detection & warning time against the Chain Home radar system.

I agree that the show’s title “Hitler’s Stealth Fighter” is somewhat misleading and was certainly not my first choice. The show was produced under a different working title, but the Nat Geo Channel had the final say. Bear in mind that a show like this is created for the general public, not specifically for aviation enthusiasts. Nat Geo is in business to stay in business and I can understand why they chose this title. After more than half a century, anything “Hitler” still sells. All that said, there’s plenty of good stuff in this documentary and I think you guys will enjoy it.

As someone pointed out, the Nat Geo website for this show does state that the Ho-229 RCS model was constructed using “materials only available in the 1940’s”, and that is incorrect. They misinterpreted our statements that we used materials that are, from the RCS standpoint, representative of what was used in the 1940’s. I’ll see what I can do to get that corrected.

By the way, the full scale Ho-229 RCS model is being donated to the San Diego Air & Space Museum. We recently had a great meeting with the museum’s team and we are making plans to get the model down there and on display in time for the documentary’s debut.

All things considered, this has been a fun project. I appreciate everyone’s interest and I hope you enjoy the show!

Gammelpreusse
06-26-2009, 03:32 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I never said it was a failure. I only stated its rather presumptious to say the aircraft had such good flying characteristics from just 3 hours (if even) of total flight time. It takes a LOT more time to get a feel for an aircraft, months to even years. There is 0 flight test data on the Gotha, so why do people constantly give it such good flying characteristics? Thats whats puzzling.

See, that makes a lot more sense. I agree completly to that notion, though I'd be interested about the 3 hours flight time? AFAIK the Horten brothers did not log a lot of their flight hours and did their testing mainly by test flights and "learning by doing", not by gathering lots of data by modern standarts. I may be very wrong here, that is just what I picked up so far, so I am more then willing to listen to more details in this

P.S. Waldo! Great find!

Kettenhunde
06-26-2009, 03:35 AM
Quite a statement considering the aircraft only flew twice, for maybe an hour total, before it crashed on the 2nd day.


Considerably less bold a statement than your misrepresentation of facts to present a desired impression surrounding Gotha prototype.

Is this intentional? I don’t think so but I do think a lack of intimate knowledge of aircraft and a need to elevate our countries achievements impedes your judgment.

Trust me, we have done some great things in aeronautical engineering and do not need to diminish other nations accomplishments.

The Horten Ho IX crashed because of engine failure below Vmc or minimum control speed. That is one of the dangers of twin engine aircraft, Gibbage.

It is generally a fatal occurrence in any twin engine aircraft. It does not have a thing to do with any fault in the Horten design.


Below a certain speed, the rudder will not have enough authority to oppose the yawing into the dead engine. This results in the aircraft rolling inverted into a spin, and nearly always the deaths of all the occupants, which creates bad press for general aviation.



So strongly, in fact, that this minimum yaw control speed, known as Vmc, is painted as a red line on the airspeed indicator, in addition to Vne.

http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184438-1.html


As for how I came into contact with 3 Northrop engineers, its simple really.

First of all, I have not said a thing about the B2 program. Stick to what I write, please.

Second, it is self evident that Northrop had a desire to learn more about the Horten Brothers design. They spent a large amount of money and time on it. It is moronic to think they would do so for nothing.

Lastly I find your tale of these mysterious B2 engineers fantastical. It requires massive suspension of belief in that they read you and Tagert on to the Classified B2 Stealth bomber program without a clearance and confided in you. Of course they might have just violated that clearance to discuss any aspect of that classified project with you but somehow I highly doubt it.

I don't think you are trying to deceive anyone, I just think you are mistaken in this case. I tend to think it is more likely that you read or heard this part somewhere:


its been well documented that members of the B2 team helped with the restoration.

And in your excitement in talking to some unknown persons with unknown experience and qualifications just assumed they were on assigned to the B2 project taking their time off to come give a pep talk.


All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
06-26-2009, 04:09 AM
A specimen of HIV was found at Göttingen in good condition and was brought back to R.A.E. for test flying. It has completed 500 hours flying since its construction in 1942, including a cloud flight of 1-hour on instruments; such a flight demonstrates that stability and control and the comfort of the prone position must be satisfactory.



Scheidhauer, Horten’s chief test pilot, has done the majority of the flying in Horten IV’s (about 1000 hrs) and his comments are worth recording. H is a strong advocate of the prone position - in his own words “it has nothing but advantages.” All H IV controls he described as very light, he flew the glider with “two fingers”. The elevator was apparently rather sensitive compared with the aileron but not unpleasantly so. Aileron application produced no adverse yaw - a definite improvement after the II and III - and could reverse a 45 degree banked turn in 5 secs. at 70-90 mph, which is better than the average sailplane. Longitudinal stability he thought satisfactory but he commented on a “wiggle” which was produced by flying through gusts; this is apparently a sharper pitch response than for a conventional sailplane, but well damped, quite harmless and requiring no corrective action by the pilot. A true stall could not be produced with normal elevon adjustment because of increasing static stick fixed stability at the stall, which used up available elevator power before the wing tips were stalled. Spins could only be produced by applying full aileron and rudder with the stick hard back; recovery was easy.


http://www.twitt.org/Farnborough_03.html#top


Longitudinal dynamic stability was good and no fundamental different from a conventional aircraft could be noticed. In rough air he thought it had a more abrupt pitch response than normal, which was only a disadvantage if gun platform steadiness was needed. (Walter Horten thought this effect might be due to the low wing loading (6 lb/sq.ft.) on the H V and Stuper agreed that this might be so).
Lateral stability appeared satisfactory. No tendency to “dutch roll” instability was found and no arratic changes of heading due to low Nv and Yv were noticeable. Stuper was in fact expecting trouble from this source but failed completely to find any. He added that his impressions were purely qualitative as they had no time to instrument the aircraft.



Reimar Horten told us that prior to the first flights b Scheidhauer on the H VII, his brother Walter had supervised the CG’ing of the aircraft ad mistakenly put ballast in the nose because the measurements were made with a steel tape with 10 cm missing from the end. Scheidhauer’s comments to us were that the aircraft had to be brought in at a minimum speed of 120 kph, with the stick nearly right back, if the nose was to be lifted for the hold off; the aircraft then floated (stick fully back) util 90 kph before touching down. Normal take-off procedure was to accelerate to 120 kph and then pull the stick back when the aircraft immediately took off and climbed away. Apparently it could be unstuck at 90 kph by pulling back hard but would not climb until 120 kph had been reached. It was impossible to stall the aircraft with the CG in this position; the general behavior was said to be “good natured”.
Walter flew the H VII (with the CG in its correct position) on 30-40 occasions, a total flying time of about 18 hours. (Scheidhauer’s time was also about 18 hours). Apparently the change in CG brought the approach speed down to about 100 kph and the aircraft could be touched down on the rear wheels. It was not certain that a complete stall could be produced in steady flight. With the stick fully back the aircraft sank on an even keel with fair lateral control. Lateral control was pleasant, the 25% Frise balance eliminated adverse yaw and virtually enabled flying on two controls.


http://www.twitt.org/Farnborough_04.html#top


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 “dutch 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 “long 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 “spielzeug”).
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

All the best,

Crumpp

Gammelpreusse
06-26-2009, 04:39 AM
great find, Ketten! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

M_Gunz
06-26-2009, 08:54 AM
"use of an audible signal produced on the reflected pulses by the propellers and general vibration of airframes, an effect noted by Lorenz investigators when observing a windmill in experiments just before the war. The radar receiver output was passed through an audio-frequency filter that suppressed the pulse-repetition frequency before transmitting it to a pair of headphones; the operator then attempted to 'hear' the airplane. The device, called Nurnberg, was manufactured between September and December 1943.

I can attest to how well listening to doppler radar (incoming wave subtracted from outgoing makes sound without any
need for screens) works provided you only listen over a limited range "window" (our term was gate). The human ear
and brain are fantastic at processing this information, you'd never figure out as quickly and accurately what is
going on by looking at spikes on a screen. I can tell walking from running from crawling, one, two or many people,
if they are digging, tires from tracks, relative heaviness of structure on not just moving vehicles but anything
with a running engine as well as the engine sounds. Helicopters, you can hear one blade coming and the other going
away at the same time. Boats, the waves from bow to stern against the hull as well. It's fantastic to hear things
move though I understand that in Vietnam a lot of monkeys and water buffalo got mistakenly targeted by artillery.

I never did get a simple set rigged for me. The EE's I knew called microwave tech "black magic" so I ended up
learning to build computers from them instead. AFAIK, doppler audio should be the cheapest and simplest setup.

Insuber
06-26-2009, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
That show will be a big lol.

"If Nazi engineers had had more time, would this jet have ultimately changed the outcome of the war?"



LOL! And IF Allied engineers would be sleeping, also. Moreover, developing a new aircraft requires not only brilliant ideas and time, but a lot of detailed design, tests, shop drawings, workforce for jigging and tooling up a new production line, skilled workers to build and maintain it, and money to finance all that. For instance the design and development of the Spitfire Mk I required 330,000 manhours, and 800,000 manhours were spent for jigging and tooling up of the production lines. The average manhours for jigging and tooling up of the other 15 models was 69,000. Design and development of the most time-consuming variant, the highly advanced Mk21, took 165,000 mhrs.

Regards,
Insuber

M_Gunz
06-26-2009, 04:26 PM
The Germans did have more time but Milsch wasted over a year of it playing budget games.

PanzerAce
06-26-2009, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
Unquestionable, however, the Ho certainly wins the "cool sinister beautiful" look contest http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

I don't think you could PAY people to argue against that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Actually, in a very strange way, it was Northrop's work which allowed work on the Horton's flying wings to go forward. <more text>

Now that's funny.


Gibbage, I'm referring to the work of the Hortens in general, not just the 229 and the prop powered stuff, but the gliders they were building in the 30's as well. While yes, the Northrop planes flew, the Hortens built flying wings that I would argue were *better* at actually flying, since they didn't need computer assistance/etc to do so.

I also wasn't referring to stealth at all...


why didnt they just paint normal aircraft in this charcoal mixture? The answer is simple. It didnt work well enough.

Maybe, because, I don't know, there was a ton of metal involved in other planes.


Quite a statement considering the aircraft only flew twice, for maybe an hour total, before it crashed on the 2nd day.

You seem to have been misinformed on something. The 229 was the LAST flying wing that the Hortens built during the war. They were building flying wings in the early 30s that worked great. And it crashed because of engine failure, not because of a basic problem with the plane.


There is 0 flight test data on the Gotha, so why do people constantly give it such good flying characteristics? Thats whats puzzling.

Because the OTHER flying wings that the Hortens build were reported to fly quite nicely, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that people that built their name on flying wings would get their first jet powered one just as "right" as their unpowered and prop powered ones...

Badsight-
06-26-2009, 05:43 PM
well ill be looking foward to this doco

the smithsonian should pull finger with the wreck , they have been storing it for too long

Badsight-
06-26-2009, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by PanzerAce:
Because the OTHER flying wings that the Hortens build were reported to fly quite nicely, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that people that built their name on flying wings would get their first jet powered one just as "right" as their unpowered and prop powered ones...
that is a stretch of the imagination & a half

why do racing teams build cars that handel worse than last years models . . . . . just because your old product worked great doesnt mean your brand new design will be even better

the only thing you can say about the 229 is that it flew

saying anything else besides that is conjecture

Gibbage1
06-26-2009, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
See, that makes a lot more sense. I agree completly to that notion, though I'd be interested about the 3 hours flight time? AFAIK the Horten brothers did not log a lot of their flight hours and did their testing mainly by test flights and "learning by doing", not by gathering lots of data by modern standarts. I may be very wrong here, that is just what I picked up so far, so I am more then willing to listen to more details in this

P.S. Waldo! Great find!

The 3 hours is nothing more then a wild guess. Im guessing with both the jets being new tech, and the wing itself being new tech, they didnt burn it in long on the 1st few flights. Most first flights are little more then short hops to make sure it will fly at all. I also dont know how long the 2nd flight lasted till it crashed. Like I said, there is 0 flight data from the V2, so I dont know how people say it was such a good flying machine.

Gibbage1
06-26-2009, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by PanzerAce:
Now that's funny.


Gibbage, I'm referring to the work of the Hortens in general, not just the 229 and the prop powered stuff, but the gliders they were building in the 30's as well. While yes, the Northrop planes flew, the Hortens built flying wings that I would argue were *better* at actually flying, since they didn't need computer assistance/etc to do so.


First, your reply is directed to me, but your not quoting me. Lets make that clear. I never said Northrop inspired the Go-229.

Second, do some research on the N9M and B-35 program. The N9M still fly's today.

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Chino2004/Sampler/N9mbFlyingWing.jpg

As someone who has seen this aircraft fly many many times, its simple grace and elegance watching it. And guess what? No computers. Also, look at my sig. No computers. The main problem with flying wing designs was lateral movement due to the lack of tail to keep the nose pointed forward. You can see on the wing tips the split aileron's used in the N9M, and that helped kept stability. You can see them on the B-2 here.

http://michaeljameshawk.com/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/b2.jpg


The Go-229 used small air brakes. Not a very elegant design. The B-2 uses the split aileron you see on the N9M, not air brakes.

Blottogg
06-26-2009, 08:20 PM
Wow, glad to see the forum hasn't changed in my absence. A tang of national pride with a healthy dose of good information, too.

Waldo.Pepper, I was wondering when someone would mention Allied radar sets brought to the continent. I would bet the bigger threat to the Go-229 would have been the AI sets on the Mosquitoes sent into the bomber streams to discourage the night fighters. Equipping the Horten with its own AI radar would have bumped its own RCS up, as well. Interesting info on German late war radars as well. It sounds like rather than automatically "gating out" Doppler shifts of little consequence (like chaff carried in the prevailing wind) they tuned the receiver to accomplish this manually. I should have guessed that as an intermediate development step, thanks. In the case of a jet aircraft, I don't know if the return from the moving blades would have been big enough to stand out from the skin return and be manually tuned. Good point too about longer wave radars ability to detect targets with narrow-band LO. The emphasis with newer LO designs is towards broad-band LO to counter just this shortcoming.

Your re-post of Noncrafter touches on this too (another great find BTW). His mention of the team's first order solution to internal structure makes sense, especially for the period UHF and VHF radars (30 MHz - 3 GHz, or 10 cm - 10 m wavelengths). I'm assuming the L band radar refers to 1-2 GHz, and not the NATO 40-60 GHz version of the L band. Any detail smaller than the wavelength of the radar signal in question behaves as a "point source". That is, its shape becomes irrelevant because the radar can't resolve the detail. It's one of the reasons you can't view electrons with a visible light microscope, and means that the radars should treat reflective paint on the inside of the model the same as a fully rigged structure of similar reflectivity.

Kettenhunde, go easy. First, $250,000 is not a lot of money for a company the size of NG. I can't speak for the executives making the decision, but I'd bet that that kind of money came out of petty cash, and was justified as a Public Relations expense. I don't doubt that Gib talked to engineers on the B-2 team, either. What they told him hardly qualifies as "reading him into" the B-2 program. I've been read in to several classified programs myself, but I still talk about airplanes, including the one's I flew and worked with. I just don't talk about the classified parts. "We didn't learn anything new" doesn't reveal classified information, sources or methods, and isn't very shocking. Nor is it a slight to the achievements of Horton. The man designed and built flying wings over a number of years, and refined his designs to a high degree.

Concerning that, your posts of flight test comments are great stuff, thanks for those. I'm a little surprised about the comments of lateral stability, as a long period oscillation of ~8 seconds isn't my first choice for a stable gun platform, though Horton was right to say that something that slow could be compensated for by the pilot. This is a shortcoming of flying wings, especially with high AR and moderate sweep. The pitch sensitivity also makes sense with a flying wing of moderate sweep. It sounds like they rigged the pitch control more conservatively than the later B-35 program (even after repositioning the CG), which was a good decision, in my opinion. Giving the pitch controls enough authority to stall the tips, with a post-stall center of lift ahead of the CG is what led to the crash that named Edwards AFB. The lack of adverse yaw in the Horton also has me wondering about the wing washout and control rigging, though those questions are outside of the scope of this thread. Finally, the reversing the 45 degree banked turn comment (in 5 seconds) strikes me as a slow roll rate for a combat aircraft, though evidently not for the period. I once flew a Citabria with a slightly better roll rate, and thought it was broken. In the Horten's case it might have something to do with the high AR, and how the controls were rigged to minimize adverse yaw.

Anyway, I'm still looking forward to the show. Thanks for all the comments that fill in some of what went in to making it, and about the technology of the period.

Kettenhunde
06-26-2009, 08:35 PM
Horten IV flying at MSU in 1959:

http://www.twitt.org/ho_iv_in_flight_color.jpg

Horten 1

http://www.twitt.org/ho_i_horten_brothers.jpg

Horten II

http://www.twitt.org/ho_ii_pic_1.jpg

Wingtip, elevon, and flaps of the Horten III:

http://www.twitt.org/ho_iii_si.jpg

Waggle tips of the Horten III

http://www.twitt.org/FarnFig26.jpg

Horten V on the field:

http://www.twitt.org/ho_v_and_ho_ii.jpg

Close up of the waggle tip control and drag rudder deployed:

http://www.twitt.org/FarnFig27.jpg

Good shot of the control surfaces on the airfield:

http://www.twitt.org/FarnFig13b.jpg

Horten VI High Performance Sailplane:

http://www.twitt.org/ho_vi_si.jpg

Horten VII in flight:

http://www.twitt.org/ho_vii_v_1_in_flight.jpg


Horten VII; Six-Engine Cargo Transport catagory aircraft under construction when the war ended:

http://www.twitt.org/Horten_VIII.jpg

Horten IX during pre-flight check out:

http://www.twitt.org/ho_ix_checkout.jpg

Control surface layout for the Horten IX:

http://www.twitt.org/Horten_IX.jpg

Horten XIII High sweep research aircraft in flight:

http://www.twitt.org/ho_xiii_a_in_flight.jpg


Flying the H XIII totaled about 10 hours.


The Go-229 used small air brakes. Not a very elegant design. The B-2 uses the split aileron you see on the N9M, not air brakes.


It appears to me that the major difference between the Northrop split aileron and the Horten Drag rudder is location.

The yaw dampening on tailess aircraft is poor and both aircraft deploy the same type of control surface to create the correct amount of drag required to dampen yaw.

All the best,

Crumpp

Gibbage1
06-26-2009, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
It appears to me that the major difference between the Northrop split aileron and the Horten Drag rudder is location.

The yaw dampening on tailess aircraft is poor and both aircraft deploy the same type of control surface to create the correct amount of drag required to dampen yaw.

All the best,

Crumpp

I dont know what drawings your looking at to arrive to that conclusion.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/airbrake01.gif

There are also two larger air brakes on the underside, and a very big air brake in the tail. Go into IL2, fly the Go-229, and kick in a little rudder. See what happens. Totally different control system. Also, how stealthy would these air brakes be in the B-2? Not very, if they kept popping out every time the pilot hit the rudder.

deepo_HP
06-27-2009, 01:59 AM
hi gibbage,

why is it, that you insist on getting northrop, his flying wings and the b-2 into this topic?
it was started as a note on a rebuilding program of a horten design, and its possible stealth-features.

but from the second post on you constantly bring it back to northrop.
i don't mind to see contributions to flying wings at all, but i don't understand your need for comparison (which you yourself started), and following praise of a plane which is off-topic.


thx both of you for the pictures, kettenhunde and gibbage.
and interesting post, blottogg. although i haven't understood most of it, i hope there will be more about radar. at least i start to get a feel what it is about.

Gibbage1
06-27-2009, 02:11 AM
Simply because a lot of people give credit fo the B-2 to the Horton brothers, and completely ignore Northrop's development of the flying wing. Almost every TV show and documentary I have ever seen link the Go-229 to the development of the B-2 without mentioning the N9M or B-35/B-49. Im just trying to give proper credit, were credit is due.

Kettenhunde
06-27-2009, 02:17 AM
Totally different control system.


As I said, it is a fact both do exactly the same thing, gibbage.

Both deliver the amount of force required to dampen the yaw forces. Please point out what you think is the aerodynamic flaw in the Horten design?

What facts do you have the tell us it is better or worse?


Also, how stealthy would these air brakes be in the B-2?

I don’t know but considering the Horten was not a stealth design and flew some ~40 years earlier than the B2 without the benefit of CAD I don’t see what the point of this speculation is frankly.

I would be willing to bet the B2 has airbrakes because generally speaking if any airplane needs airbrakes, it is a tailless design. It makes the airplane much easier and safer to get to the pattern to land.

I will play your game on this one though; tell me how fast the F-15 would be with a RR Merlin swinging a Hamilton Standard propeller on the front?

All the best,

Crumpp

Gibbage1
06-27-2009, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
As I said, it is a fact both do exactly the same thing, gibbage.

Both deliver the amount of force required to dampen the yaw forces. Please point out what you think is the aerodynamic flaw in the Horten design?

What facts do you have the tell us it is better or worse?


They serve the same function, but in completely different ways. Its like saying there is no difference between tail draggers and tricycle landing gear. Both have wheels and contact the ground, so the same right? Split aileron was a much more stealthy and less draggy of the control systems, and thats why it was chosen for the B-2.



I would be willing to bet the B2 has airbrakes because generally speaking if any airplane needs airbrakes, it is a tailless design. It makes the airplane much easier and safer to get to the pattern to land.


Really? How much? Also, lets qualify airbrakes as a designated system designed to slow the aircraft down. In that, the B-2 has no such system. It does however have the split aileron it opens up 90 degrees to be used as a type of air brake, but again, there is no such designated system.

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Edwards2005/B2/B2Taxying9oClock2.jpg



I will play your game on this one though; tell me how fast the F-15 would be with a RR Merlin swinging a Hamilton Standard propeller on the front?

All the best,

Crumpp

W...T...F... What does a merlin powered F-15 have anything to do with flying wings? Talk about off-topic. What are you reaching for on this one? BTW, if you want an Allison powered F-15, look at the P-38.

Kettenhunde
06-27-2009, 03:07 AM
Blottogg,

The Horten bros stability and control design was both typical of the era in many ways with all of the associated shortcomings and rather innovative in others IMHO.


His calculations of control forces were customary, design was governed by experience.

The change over from round nosed to Frise nosed controls was made to improve the yawing characteristics with aileron applications. The subdivision of the flap into two parts enabled differential to be used to improve the favorable yaw with aileron. The outer Frise nose in this case balanced the round nosed inner flap also. In the three stage flap, where the outer flap behaved principally as up going aileron, it was possible to alter the relative balance between aileron and elevator (the latter being usually too light relative to the aileron) and produce better harmony of control. This was aid to be especially important in high aspect ratio sailplanes (or airplanes ling the H VIII) where the ratio of lateral inertia to longitudinal inertia is high (e.g. this ratio was about 30 on the H VI compared with 5 on the H IX). Further questioning revealed that Horten thought lateral inertia important because the initial response (acceleration) when correcting small gust disturbances depended largely on inertia although the final rate of roll was hardly affected.
Drag rudder design was evolved entirely by flight experiment with no wing tunnel data to help.



Dynamic stability was never investigated theoretically and was not studied very carefully in flight. Reliance was placed mainly on general impressions of the pilot and we found no evidence of results having been analyzed critically.
The Hortens were obviously not in the habit of thinking in terms of periods and dampings, and Reimar did not know that lv and nv were for his various designs; dihedral was fixed by experience.
The “stick force per g” criterion was not used and although elevator angles to trim were considered in the design stage there was no methodical flight check.


http://www.twitt.org/Farnborough_07.html#top


Some interesting general comments on the Horten Designs:


5.1 Stability and Control in Unstalled Flight


http://www.twitt.org/Farnborough_08.html#top


First, $250,000 is not a lot of money for a company the size of NG.

I have some experience in both corporate sponsorship and aircraft restoration both for static and operational use.

You entitled you opinion and I respect it; I have stated mine and stand by it.


I've been read in to several classified programs myself, but I still talk about airplanes, including the one's I flew and worked with. I just don't talk about the classified parts.

As above, I have stated my experience and stand by it.

Is this easy enough for you?

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
06-27-2009, 03:25 AM
They serve the same function, but in completely different ways. Its like saying there is no difference between tail draggers and tricycle landing gear.

Not really, these systems might different in details but both provide the force required to neutralize moments about the CG.

I don't know enough of the details about them to make any other call at this time. Based on the claims you make I don't think you do either.


Split aileron was a much more stealthy and less draggy of the control systems,

What does stealth have to do with it? I highly doubt the Horten was envisioned as a stealth aircraft as we think of them.

As for drag, both systems deploy flat control surfaces to create the forces required.

What is the difference at this time other than operation? The Northrop could have Horten's controls and they will have to provide the same forces no matter what.

In that respect there is little to choose either. Both methods add necessary complexity.

All the best,

Crumpp

Gammelpreusse
06-27-2009, 07:55 AM
Ketten, Gibbage, thanks for the input, but I think the exact ways of yaw control is as important as a bag of rice falling down in China in the greater picture of this initial discussion.
AFAIK both Northrop and Horten came up with solutions that worked. In the case of the Horten design and stealth, I do not think Radar was sensitive enough back in WW2 to make much of a difference when it comes to aileron deflection.

Gib, if you want to discuss the Northrop designs, and I am all for that, why don't you open a new thread on that topic?

Kettenhunde
06-27-2009, 09:30 AM
You are welcome Gammelpreusse.

I have enjoyed much of the discussion and learned a few things too.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
06-27-2009, 09:40 AM
AFAIK both Northrop and Horten came up with solutions that worked.

This is a fact.

I know this is not very exciting but allow me to quickly explain the issues here and why "both are the same".

Control surface design is a function of area. We need to put a specific amount of area into the relative wind in order to achieve a specific moment about the CG.

Regardless of whether we have a Horten designed drag rudder, a Northrop split aileron, or monkeys holding paddles we still have to produce that moment of force with our control system.

That means both systems are designed to put that required area into the relative wind.

Arguing about drag production of the control surface is silly because designers attempt to provide the right amount of area to overcome the required moments in the flight envelope for that specific design.

Looking at the control surfaces of one aircraft and attempting to compare drag of the surface to another design just does not work. The control surfaces apply only to the aircraft they are designed around.

All the best,

Crumpp

Gammelpreusse
06-27-2009, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AFAIK both Northrop and Horten came up with solutions that worked.

This is a fact.

I know this is not very exciting but allow me to quickly explain the issues here and why "both are the same".

Control surface design is a function of area. We need to put a specific amount of area into the relative wind in order to achieve a specific moment about the CG.

Regardless of whether we have a Horten designed drag rudder, a Northrop split aileron, or monkeys holding paddles we still have to produce that moment of force with our control system.

That means both systems are designed to put that required area into the relative wind.

Arguing about drag production of the control surface is silly because designers attempt to provide the right amount of area to overcome the required moments in the flight envelope for that specific design.

Looking at the control surfaces of one aircraft and attempting to compare drag of the surface to another design just does not work. The control surfaces apply only to the aircraft they are designed around.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Kettenhunde, that is exactly the way I understood it and that is why I try to put a break on this debate between you two. It's pretty redundant in light of the bigger issues at hand, especially in regards to the stealth debate.

Do I get this right, the Ho229 was not designed with stealth in mind. Basicly, it was an inherent byproduct of the flying wing design. But recognized as such, attempts were made to build upon these characteristics with the radar absorbing maerials in the leading edge?

BTW, thanks for taking your time for typing down all that stuff. It is appreciated, I do not want to sound unthankful for all that effort by cutting you out. Same goes to you, Gib.

ACE-OF-ACES
06-27-2009, 10:21 AM
http://news.nationalgeographic...ews/pf/80316217.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/80316217.html)
http://www.nasm.si.edu/museum/garber/


Stealth by Accident?
Stealth aircraft <span class="ev_code_yellow">rely on shapes</span> that prevent radar waves from bouncing back to their sources <span class="ev_code_red">and on materials that absorb radar energy</span>.

Some experts, like the Garber facility's Lee, question the Hortens' postwar claims that their plane had been intended as a stealth plane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Lee from the NASM Paul E. Garber Facility:
My take on it is that their goal at the time was to meet requirements for speed and range, The all-wing concept was [Reimar Horten's] baby, and he designed the shape for aerodynamic reasons he never started talking about radar until after the war.

Reimar talked about a sawdust and carbon coating to absorb radar energy, but we found no evidence of that on the Horton that we have here </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So the experts that have had access to the 229 for over 60 years have found no evidence of any radar absorbing material. It appears the only one pushing that party line is David Myhra. Who clearly has an agenda and books sales to promote.


Proof of Stealth?
Radar tests on the <span class="ev_code_yellow">replica</span> show that the plane's radical, <span class="ev_code_yellow">smooth design</span> would indeed have given it a significant <span class="ev_code_yellow">advantage</span> against radar, according to Tom Dobrenz, a Northrop Grumman expert in stealth, or "low observable," technology, who led the Horten replica project.

In short: The Horten 2-29 looks to have been the world's first stealth fighter.

But was it meant to be?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tom Dobrenz a Northrop Grumman expert in stealth and led on Horten replica project:
I believe they were [mainly] driven by the aerodynamic side of it. Still, radar tests on the surviving Ho 2-29 revealed that <span class="ev_code_red">they put some kind of carbon-type material</span> in between the layers of plywood on the plane's leading edges, <span class="ev_code_red">Personally,</span> I cannot understand that being for anything other than doing something to defeat radar. I'm not so sure that <span class="ev_code_red">they had any clue</span> what it was going to do or whether it was going to work or not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So much like the myth of the Me262 being the first intentional swept wing fighter design, it appears the the 229 stealth properties due to its shape were just dumb luck, and the true purpose of the carbon material is not known.


Could Have Been a Game Changer:
At least one major mystery remains: How would Hitler's stealth fighter have affected the outcome of World War II, had the plane made it to mass production?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tom Dobrenz a Northrop Grumman expert in stealth and led on Horten replica project:
This <span class="ev_code_yellow">design</span> gave them just about a <span class="ev_code_yellow">20 percent reduction in radar range</span> detection over a conventional fighter of the day

According to tests on the replica, World War II British radar would have picked up the Horten over the English Channel at about 80 miles out, versus 100 miles for a conventional World War II fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So all that work and it only got them 20 extra miles before detection?

As for game changer.. If it would have changed anything it would have been to delay the envidiable, such that the US might have opted to use the ABOMB on Berlin.

Gammelpreusse
06-27-2009, 10:49 AM
Interesting post, Ace, in parts contradicting what has been posted so far. Getting more confusing all along. You are awfully fast coming to final conclusions, however, considering your sources are not really sure what this all is about themselves. Basicly, they suspect the germans had some vague idea and just thought "the heck, maybe it works, maybe not, let's just try something!" ?

Btw, I'd not focus on that documentaries title and preminse. We all know most american shows tend to be a bit sensationalist, no matter the topic.

Waldo.Pepper
06-27-2009, 11:02 AM
Briefly ...

2 selected 'quotes' .... [edited by me for brevity and clarity] of


Originally posted by ACE-OF-ACES:

In short: The Horten 2-29 looks to have been the world's first stealth fighter ... it appears the the 229 stealth properties due to its shape were just dumb luck

It may have been more than just dumb luck.

The bottom line is this. The Horton line of flying wings (any flying wing) had (does have) a lower radar signatures than other more conventional shapes.

Was this an intended design feature? Possibly,


Originally posted by ACE-OF-ACES:
as the true purpose of the carbon material is not known.

Therefore, it may have been more than just dumb luck.

Examining even the original Ho-229 in the Garber collection (rather than a replica) would not reveal the intentions of the designers.

As it was but one of their designs!

Even reading their interrogations and interviews would not give us the complete answer. Looking at all the Horton designs may reveal some intentional stealth.

Is this preposterous? Not at all.

The pilots (of both sides) of the time knew all about avoiding being 'painted' by enemy Radars and took great pains to avoid being detected. (By flying under the radar or avoiding known sites all together. Even today this is a valid approach.)

There were attempts to apply Radar absorbant materials to various parts of a U-Boats during the war.

An aircraft manufacturer has to convince the buyer of the worthiness of their proposal. Especially in a crumbling Germany where all resources were in short supply.
I don't think it is a stretch to say that as part of the 'sales campaign' that the Horton's wing would have been touted marginally more difficult to detect on Radar.


Originally posted by ACE-OF-ACES:
So all that work and it only got them 20 extra miles before detection?

The TV show only tested it against the CH radars of WW2. Sadly time did not permit other more prevalent sets that the Horton would have more likely faced.

Would it have "changed history"? Of course.
Would it have allowed a German Victory? (as some interpret "Changed History" to mean? Of course not.

TinyTim
06-27-2009, 12:43 PM
Wasn't a Go229 an answer to nearly impossible Goerings 1000/1000/1000 order? Carrying 1 ton of ordnance 1000km away with an average speed of 1000kph is impressive even today, so I don't really believe Hortens, besides cracking their heads on how to satisfy the primary objective, dedicated any effort to making their design stealthy. This said - I'm not in any way saying or implying it wasn't - only it probably wasn't built as such.

Besides, yeah, I find this questions about "Could it change history" really silly too. Germany built 1400 Me262s, yet only 300 saw combat. They didn't have pilots, ammo, fuel and airbases to operate these jets from. That's what could have turned the tide, not some wonderplane.

ACE-OF-ACES
06-28-2009, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
Interesting post, Ace, in parts contradicting what has been posted so far.
Getting more confusing all along.
Thanks, I just got tired of all the guessing at what the NATGEO show was saying or going to say and decided to read what they said thus far.


Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
You are awfully fast coming to final conclusions,
Well I have to give credit where credit is due. The reason it seems to be fast is that these are not my conclusions, these are my interpretations of their (the experts) conclusions.


Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
however, considering your sources are not really sure what this all is about themselves. Basically, they suspect the germans had some vague idea and just thought "the heck, maybe it works, maybe not, let's just try something!" ?
Well that depends on who you choose to belive. The only person pushing that idea hard is David Myhra, who clearly has an agenda and books sales to promote. As for Tom Dobrenz passing comment on it, he starts of by saying he believes they were [mainly] driven by the aerodynamic side of it, but admits that he "personally" does not know what the carbon material was intended for. Only that if it was intended to defeat radar he believes they didn't have any clue as to what it would do. Who knows for sure, could have been for a lot of things. I don't know if they tried to reproduce that in the mock up, I didn't see any mention of it. Thus if they didn't the shape of the flying wing itself is what gave it the 20% better advantage over conventional aircraft. Which leads back to 'stealth by accident'. Which is very different from intentional stealth. Heck if we go back to WWI Ill bet we could find a lot of wood and canvas planes that have a low radar signature. Should we give them the title too of being the first stealth planes? If so it should read first stealth plan by accident.


Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
Btw, I'd not focus on that documentaries title and preminse. We all know most american shows tend to be a bit sensationalist, no matter the topic.
Oh I agree! I just figured I would go to the source of the topic at hand and post what was actually being said than what the Monday morning quarterbacks here are guessing at what it says.

ACE-OF-ACES
06-28-2009, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ACE-OF-ACES:
In short: The Horten 2-29 looks to have been the world's first stealth fighter ... it appears the the 229 stealth properties due to its shape were just dumb luck

It may have been more than just dumb luck.

The bottom line is this. The Horton line of flying wings (any flying wing) had (does have) a lower radar signatures than other more conventional shapes.

Was this an intended design feature? Possibly, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Possibly but not likely, based off what the experts had to say about the shape, i.e.


Lee from the NASM Paul E. Garber Facility:
My take on it is that their goal at the time was to meet requirements for speed and range, The all-wing concept was [Reimar Horten's] baby, and he designed the shape for aerodynamic reasons he never started talking about radar until after the war.


Tom Dobrenz a Northrop Grumman expert in stealth and lead on Horten replica project:
I believe they were [mainly] driven by the aerodynamic side of it


Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ACE-OF-ACES:
as the true purpose of the carbon material is not known.

Therefore, it may have been more than just dumb luck. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Possibly but not likly, based off what the experts had to say about the shape, i.e.


Lee from the NASM Paul E. Garber Facility:
Reimar talked about a sawdust and carbon coating to absorb radar energy, but we found no evidence of that on the Horton that we have here


Tom Dobrenz a Northrop Grumman expert in stealth and led on Horten replica project:
Still, radar tests on the surviving Ho 2-29 revealed that they put some kind of carbon-type material in between the layers of plywood on the plane's leading edges, Personally, I cannot understand that being for anything other than doing something to defeat radar. I'm not so sure that they had any clue what it was going to do or whether it was going to work or not.
Of the two Tom Dobrenz trys to give them the benefit of the doubt, but goes on to point out that even if it was intentional they had no clue as to what it was going to do.


Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Would it have "changed history"? Of course.
Not really, in that it is part of history.


Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Would it have allowed a German Victory? (as some interpret "Changed History" to mean?) Of course not.
I agree! The Germans should thank their lucky stars the war ended when it did, if not sooner.

ACE-OF-ACES
06-28-2009, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AFAIK both Northrop and Horten came up with solutions that worked.

This is a fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Really?

Seems to me that is like saying the jet engine on the Me262 is the same as the piston engine and prop on a P51 because they are both 'solutions' that worked (produced thrust). Ok, sure, they both work, but which way is 'better'?

With regards to better, the only FACT I see here is that Northrop didn't switch over to the Go229 'solution' when the build the B2.

Thus just one more nail in the coffin of anyone that thinks Northrop needed the Go229 technology to build the B2.

Uppiski
06-28-2009, 02:44 PM
To Waldo Pepper

Thank you for your very interesting post concerning your involvement with the NG program and the HO 229 project. I simply posted a heads up for something that involves airplanes and by the looks of the previews would be fun to watch. I am a retired antique dealer (American 17th and 18th century) but also love old airplanes. In the mid 1980’s I did the old 3-hour tour with my wife of the facilities at Silver Hill, (Garber) and still remember the sense of Holy cow I want to live here, not just work here. I still remember standing next to the wooden ribbed fuselage of a British Felixstowe F.2A flying boat of 1918 and marveling at the construction and seeing a Soviet Sam missile sitting next to it. Ten feet and at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from each other. I also remember seeing the fuselage of the HO 229.

As to some of the members of this community: Folks life is too short, we need to stay ten years old no matter how old we have become and keep the ability to stand there and go, “let is really cool”

Anyway I am looking forward to seeing the show tonight.

Uppy

Kettenhunde
06-28-2009, 11:10 PM
Seems to me that is like saying the jet engine on the Me262 is the same as the piston engine

I am sure it does seem that way to you. There are fundamental differences in thrust producers as opposed to power producers. So much in fact that different theory and techniques is used to determine their very different behaviors.

This is not the case in the control designs of Northrop and the Horten brothers. It is the same theory, principles, and both accomplish the same goal for the same penalties.

Po-tA-tO or Po-TAT-o.....

I know this is not very exciting but allow me to quickly explain the issues here and why "both are the same".

Control surface design is a function of area. We need to put a specific amount of area into the relative wind in order to achieve a specific moment about the CG.

Regardless of whether we have a Horten designed drag rudder, a Northrop split aileron, or monkeys holding paddles we still have to produce that moment of force with our control system.

That means both systems are designed to put that required area into the relative wind.

Arguing about drag production of the control surface is silly because designers attempt to provide the right amount of area to overcome the required moments in the flight envelope for that specific design.

Looking at the control surfaces of one aircraft and attempting to compare drag of the surface to another design just does not work. The control surfaces apply only to the aircraft they are designed around.

All the best,

Crumpp

Gammelpreusse
06-29-2009, 01:01 AM
so, what was said on that show?

Xiolablu3
06-29-2009, 09:20 AM
Interesting....I wonder why tailess designs arent more common these days, as we learn that they are so 'effiecient'?

Is it because they need an effective 'fly-by-wire' system in order to be safe?

Kettenhunde
06-29-2009, 09:28 AM
I wonder why tailess designs arent more common these days,

They are weird looking and not what pilots expect a plane to look like, much less fly safely. Look how long it took to get pilots to fly with the canopy closed in the 1930’s.

Same reason why Burt Rutan's designs have not pushed aside airplanes like the C150 despite the fact you can get 60 miles to the gallon form a Vari-EZ at almost twice the cruising speed with even more docile flight characteristics at a much lower cost.

The Spam Can rules because it is comforting and does a reasonable job of flying safely.

All the best,

Crumpp

ACE-OF-ACES
06-29-2009, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Is it because they need an effective 'fly-by-wire' system in order to be safe?
That may have been the reason back in the 40s and 50s but not anymore, computer control and fly by wire is 2nd nature these days.

When I worked at Northrop I met a guy who had worked on some of the early flying wing stuff.

He said back when Northrop was pushing the idea of getting into the air liner business the problem with flying wings for airliners is you have to locate passengers out in the wing area to utilize the space.

The problem with that is the g's a passenger experiences sitting out there in the wing area as apposed to sitting near the centerline of the plane. Each time the plane banks, your experiencing more up and down motion that people sitting near the centerline. Fun for the kids but can make allot or people more air sick that conventional flights! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

With all the new computer flying controls it is a lot easier to do flat turns instead of banked turns. The new proposed Boeing flying wing airliners are touting that.

ACE-OF-ACES
06-29-2009, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Seems to me that is like saying the jet engine on the Me262 is the same as the piston engine

I am sure it does seem that way to you. There are fundamental differences in thrust producers as opposed to power producers. So much in fact that different theory and techniques is used to determine their very different behaviors.

This is not the case in the control designs of Northrop and the Horten brothers. It is the same theory, principles, and both accomplish the same goal for the same penalties.

Po-tA-tO or Po-TAT-o..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh dear you took my extreme example seriously? I thought I was safe using that extreme example in that I though everyone would see it as just that. Sorry if I confused you! So allow me to explain/expand on that in a little more detail, I used that extreme example to highlight how silly it is to ‘equate’ two things just because they both were ‘solutions that worked’.

That is to say just because they both ‘work’ does not mean they are both ‘equal’!

With that said allow me to give yet one more extreme example to drive that point home. One that is not related to aircraft, thus not likely to be taken seriously.


Warning the following is a extreme example:
Bubble-gum will hold two pieces of wood together, and Elmers glue will hold two pieces of wood together, but most people know Elmers glue will do a better job of holding two pieces of wood together.

With that in mind allow me to reiterate the summary of my last post. Northrop knew about the Go229’s method of control designs, yet they did not use the Go229 method. Thus proving the original Northrop method (Elmers glue) was a better way of doing it, in that if the Go229 method (bubble-gum) was a better way of doing it Northrop would have done it that way. Also note that saying ‘better’ takes more into account than the surface area of the controls. There could be a whole list of items as to why Northrop found their method to be a better way of doing it.

PS I don’t mean to offend anyone here who prefers to use bubble-gum to hold two pieces of wood together! For what ever reason! If that is the way your grandfather from the old country did it and by god that is the way your going to do it too! Fine! More power to you! Just don’t be upset with the rest of us who prefer to use the better way of doing it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
06-29-2009, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I wonder why tailess designs arent more common these days,

They are weird looking and not what pilots expect a plane to look like, much less fly safely. Look how long it took to get pilots to fly with the canopy closed in the 1930’s.

Same reason why Burt Rutan's designs have not pushed aside airplanes like the C150 despite the fact you can get 60 miles to the gallon form a Vari-EZ at almost twice the cruising speed with even more docile flight characteristics at a much lower cost.

The Spam Can rules because it is comforting and does a reasonable job of flying safely.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A very old pilot friend of mine told me when I asked about the Beech V-tail that those things gained speed way
quicker than most pilots expect. He related seeing one augur in at IIRC the Wilmington, DE, airport some decades
ago. The understanding was the pilot was unable to pull out just from not watching his speed for longer than he
should have after being used to other planes, being a new owner of that one.

I think it's a matter of knowing your habits and not wanting to get in a situation where they will get you killed.
When veteran pilots with umpteen log hours are afraid of or concerned about a plane, newbies tend to take that to heart.
Surely someone careful and properly trained (have the right habits) should not have such problems and benefit from
such a slick plane but your average pilot doesn't fly those things so maybe it's better to stick with what he or she
is used to. IMO it's kind of like that with sports cars and you can wind up just as dead, just not as easily.

deepo_HP
06-29-2009, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by ACE-OF-ACES:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Warning the following is a extreme example:
Bubble-gum will hold two pieces of wood together, and Elmers glue will hold two pieces of wood together, but most people know Elmers glue will do a better job of holding two pieces of wood together.

[...]

PS I don’t mean to offend anyone here who prefers to use bubble-gum to hold two pieces of wood together! For what ever reason! If that is the way your grandfather from the old country did it and by god that is the way your going to do it too! Fine! More power to you! Just don’t be upset with the rest of us who prefer to use the better way of doing it! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i guess, that you have no clue about the bubble-gum, my grandfather chewed here in the old country. it was very sticky and water-resistant.
on the other hand, i have never heard of 'elmer's glue'. is it mentioned in a toon's episode?
please compare 'elmer's glue to something, which you have knowledge of. or provide some more details of 'elmer's glue, besides of what other people know, please... like which size is the wood-pieces, matches?

if you want to believe in the better way of 'elmer', just feel free.
but you should consider, that something is not 'better', just because it had been used.
oh dear you thought it is?
no, it isn't.

it could have been not used for many reasons, perhaps 'elmer' didn't understand how to chew?


i don't trust neither in bubble-gum nor in 'elmer'. you seem to have a strong belief in glue. maybe you like the smell...

M_Gunz
06-29-2009, 05:29 PM
Deepo, Elmer's is just a brand name. Their white glue will bond softwood like pine stronger than the wood.
It's not like no one else has these things for sale, white glue is what people have made of bones and hooves
for centuries I am sure.

And AOA is just Tagert, trolling as usual.

deepo_HP
06-29-2009, 06:51 PM
thx, mgunz, as i indeed haven't had a clue, what elmer did to bones!

anyway, the point with the gum/glue-story as well with the jet/prop-comparison of ace-of is, that - even if they were acceptable - they show the same strange attitude: the poster seems to make his conclusions not by examination and facts, but just by conviction. maybe like in 'what there is, is good' or perhaps as loyalty to his former employer.

indeed, in my opinion the only way to find advantages or disadvantages is to get to know more about a matter. a promising start for it is to consider the lowest common mean of things. as suggested before it would be 'they both fulfill the basic task, they are build for'.
then it can be dissected in detail, what other effects are involved.

it is not at all helping to start with calling control surfaces 'airbrakes', which they are not by function. neither does the description 'not elegant' has any worth.
ressorting to elmer's glue-problems could be worth, but pity, that it only showed again, that ace-of is at best good for one-sided information and doesn't seem to feel any need for evaluation... they built it, so it is good?

besides it hasn't been in the opener's post, the topic obviously is a comparison of flying wings now. very well, i appreciate that.
still i don't understand, why some just refuse to compare ho-229 and b-2, instead prefer to reply in a flat 'gotha is an artifact, northrop is good'.

the b-2 is an extraordinary flying object and has been built and designed by northrop. great work!
however, i haven't seen yet any human walking the earth, who invented anything all alone. newton hasn't been a daydreamer, inspired by apples - sorry to tell, but it is a bedtime story. einstein hasn't been a lonely boy in a patent-bureau, who was so bored, that he concluded to time-dilatation by that.
and neither northrop nor horten had met a fire-bush speaking to them how to build a flying wing.
but all of those men (there have been women as well) had spirit enough to do their exceptional work.

i read about those engineers, saying that they 'hadn't learned anything new' by examining the gotha wing. if they were working for me, they would have been fired for incompetence. a so-called engineer is not able to make conclusions on his project by examining another one?

somwhere in the thread it was claimed to be another case of 'dumb luck' (doesn't matter what it was about). well, if so, good for those who then could make use of other's 'dumb luck', so they were in no need for it.
way more important than the circumstances of discovery is the recognition of the meaning and drawing the right conclusions.


back to the control-issues. whatever was used in either plane, it certainly was exactly, what it was intended to be: a rudder for yaw-control.
so besides the esthetic value i would be interested in the efficiency and the perhaps included disadvantages.
i hope, there will be more about it - after all, it was a nice diagramm of the wing-construction shown there. are there more? perhaps of northrop's design as well?

M_Gunz
06-29-2009, 07:25 PM
Deepo, he's just trying to jerk you (and anyone else he can) around.
It's his only way to get attention.
Imagine someone like that IRL and you can see why, huh?

Kettenhunde
06-29-2009, 09:36 PM
And AOA is just Tagert, trolling as usual.


That is what I thought.


back to the control-issues. whatever was used in either plane, it certainly was exactly, what it was intended to be: a rudder for yaw-control.


Exactly and each system is designed to provide the amount of force that system needs to function.

We really don't know anything else at this point.

On the engineers answer, it depends on what he was asked.

If someone came up and asked a question about control effectiveness for example, I would be confused.

If you know the law of lever, we can adjust the moment by changing the weight. In the case of a control surface, we use the force of pressure over the surface area to provide that "weight".

I can vary that surface area to provide whatever moment I want. The most rapid rate of change or largest amount of change is not the best either as we can induce stalls and other hazards to the pilot.

I would fire a guy too for the circumstances you describe. My only point is if the original question does not make any sense, then I would not expect the answer to make any sense either.

We can't peer into that engineers mind to see his thoughts and it is common for emotional people who misunderstand the answer to take it to their own wrong conclusions.

All the best,

Crumpp

Gibbage1
06-29-2009, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The Spam Can rules because it is comforting and does a reasonable job of flying safely.

All the best,

Crumpp

There is a lot more at play then just that. First, production cost. The Connie was a great aircraft, and the body was a lot more effective aerodynamically then the tube-liners. But it was extremely costly to make. Same with the Spitfires elliptical wing. So much so that the Spitful was designed specifically without the elliptical wing. Cost plays a huge role in design. Complexity adds cost.

Also, flying wings will never make good passenger jets. Yes, more efficient, but there are more reasons. Northrop did a lot of studies into making the B-49 into a jet airliner. They found a few interesting things.

#1, the wing allowed for a very wide passenger compartment, but no windows. Passengers get very nervous not having windows. Also, not having a visual point of reference when banking, passengers got very sick.

#2, passengers located away from the center of the aircraft got extremely sick on banking maneuvers, due to the fact that they are being lifted up, or going down on roll. Add that to the lack of a visual reference, and you have a lot of very full vomit bags. Some of these lessons were learned with the P-82 program, but pilots were able to overcome the sensation with training. Passengers have no such opportunity.

Kettenhunde
06-29-2009, 10:41 PM
I think it's a matter of knowing your habits and not wanting to get in a situation where they will get you killed.


I agree.

M_Gunz
06-30-2009, 01:34 AM
A long time ago they would twist (warp) the wings to achieve control. Maybe some day they will do that again.

Kettenhunde
06-30-2009, 03:26 AM
Wing warping was key to the success of the Gossamer Condor in fact.

M_Gunz
06-30-2009, 03:37 AM
That was the human powered plane that crossed the Channel? Boy, that takes me back!

Skoshi Tiger
06-30-2009, 03:57 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
A long time ago they would twist (warp) the wings to achieve control. Maybe some day they will do that again.

I seem to recall that Wright Brothers took out a patent on the wing warping technique. Ailerons weren't covered by patents, which is why the wing warping didn't become common.

Cheers!

Bremspropeller
06-30-2009, 04:34 AM
So much like the myth of the Me262 being the first intentional swept wing fighter design, it appears the the 229 stealth properties due to its shape were just dumb luck, and the true purpose of the carbon material is not known.


Please, spare us with your sh1t.
Your "swing by accident"-whish contradics the pricipals of every SANE designer.
We've put that up like 500 times now and you're still trapped in your liquid-dream.
Time to wake upand accept the hard truth, tagert.

@ The rest:

Why is everyone going hot over this topic?
The Hortens never gave a sh1t about "stealth".
They built an aircraft with ressources that were availiable in great scales.
So much for *wood* as material.
The *stealthy* design is a feature of flying wings' nature.

Telling that the Hortens were trying to build a stealth-fighter is about as much nonsense as saying that LaGG wanted to biuld stealth-fighters by taking wood instead of aluminuim for their fighters.

BTW: a professor of mine has spent 10 years in Argentina along the surviving of the Horten-brothers.
So if anybody has a (same) question, I'm gonna ask him.

Kettenhunde
06-30-2009, 07:03 AM
BTW: a professor of mine has spent 10 years in Argentina along the surviving of the Horten-brothers.


Nice of you to offer, Bremspropeller, thanks.

Pass along anything you can about his memories of the Hortens and give man our thanks for sharing, too!


So much for *wood* as material.


Don't discount wood as a building material for aircraft. It is nature's carbon fiber. Strength per weight it is better than most aluminum alloys used for aircraft and has almost unlimited fatigue life.

That is why companies like Bellanca still use it.


pound of wood used to build an airplane has nearly twice the tensile strength as a pound of aluminum.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Buil...-With-Wood&id=937230 (http://ezinearticles.com/?Building-An-Airplane-With-Wood&id=937230)


Wood's ease of workability requires a minimum of special tools to produce an outstanding finished product. Wood repairs relatively easily. Wood is less prone to the effects of vibration and, unlike some other materials, does not develop fatigue cracks from repeated stress and vibration.

http://www.westernaircraftspruce.com/material.php


The wing was built from the finest available aircraft quality Sitka spruce and has many advantages over any metal or composite wing. It will not corrode, it will not delaminate in heat like a modern composite and you can paint the wing any color you want.

The wing gently flexes in turbulence and absorbs the bumps better than any other light aircraft structure. The wood will not fatigue like an aluminum wing. If you keep the wood’s moisture level below 20 percent, there will be no dry rot. Period.

live in humid Florida and my wing gets moisture checked every annual and it is always below 14 percent. The glue that’s used to put it together has been used in aircraft since the 1930s and the wood will fail before any Resorcinol joint fails.


http://home.att.net/~vikingdrvr/AvConsumer.html (http://home.att.net/%7Evikingdrvr/AvConsumer.html)

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/7508/cheerleaders.jpg (http://img530.imageshack.us/i/cheerleaders.jpg/)

All the best,

Crumpp

ImpStarDuece
06-30-2009, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

The Spam Can rules because it is comforting and does a reasonable job of flying safely.

All the best,

Crumpp

well, Airbus and Boeing both played with ideas for various flying wing and lifting body designs.

I use to talk regularlly to one of Airbus former cheif engineers (who had since moved to sales) when I used to work next door to Airbus' Sydney office.

A few years back, I asked hime about commerical flying wing airliners, and his answer was along the lines that they were "completely impractical and less efficent than the modern tube with wings. They also fail to match most of the requirements of modern airlines in terms of maintenance, turn around times and a host of other areas.

stalkervision
06-30-2009, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> After an expenditure of about US$250,000 and 2,500 man-hours Northrop's Ho-229 reproduction was tested at the company's classified radar cross-section (RCS) test range at Tejon, California

I highly doubt Northrop Grumman agrees with there was nothing left to learn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229


Interestingly, I spoke with 3 members of the B-2 design team, and yes they did go visit the Go-229 at the Smithsonian, but from there exact quote "We didnt learn anything new"


I am curious as to why 3 members of a classified design team and a major defense contractor would mention anything to you about their project, their company’s interest, or the progress of their work?

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Northop design teams studied the Horton designs extensively before the B-2 and other stealth concepts.

Bremspropeller
06-30-2009, 08:24 AM
Don't discount wood as a building material for aircraft. It is nature's carbon fiber. Strength per weight it is better than most aluminum alloys used for aircraft and has almost unlimited fatigue life.

That is why companies like Bellanca still use it.

I never said anything against wood as material.
I was just pointing out they were using wood out of a shortage on "strategic" ressources instead of intentionally making the plane "stealthy".

Kettenhunde
06-30-2009, 08:54 AM
I never said anything against wood as material.

I apologize if I created the perception I was correcting you.

I was not.

"Prejudice" against wood as an airframe material is common even today. Facts are it is a great material to build an airframe. "Wooden airplane" in no way means "inferior airplane".

All the best,

Crumpp

TS_Sancho
06-30-2009, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Deepo, Elmer's is just a brand name. Their white glue will bond softwood like pine stronger than the wood.
It's not like no one else has these things for sale, white glue is what people have made of bones and hooves
for centuries I am sure.


Ooooh oooh ooooh, cant help myself and have to jump in.

White glue is PVA based and has different set qualities than carpenters (yellow) glue.

Modern yellow carpenters glue is based on an aliphatic resin which depending on the composition has different open work times. The strength of its bond is not limited to soft woods, it bonds hardwood equally well but oily woods can require special prep before application.

Animal hide glue is a different critter alltogather and is amazing stuff. It is not used much today due to its being awkward to work with requiring a heated pot to be workable and it stinks to high heaven untill it sets.

Hide glue has the curious property of being able to thermally reactivate after a very long set time ( I've reworked a piece built in 1870 using only the original glue bond remnants and a little heat).

Way off topic I know but I couldnt help myself.

Carry on

HuninMunin
06-30-2009, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
For all that matters, I've made rectangular flying wing paper planes that flew stable since 1968.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

Argument's over chaps.

M_Gunz
06-30-2009, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Skoshi Tiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
A long time ago they would twist (warp) the wings to achieve control. Maybe some day they will do that again.

I seem to recall that Wright Brothers took out a patent on the wing warping technique. Ailerons weren't covered by patents, which is why the wing warping didn't become common.

Cheers! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Morane Bullet that Fokker copied as the Eindekker used wing warping, IIRC. The patent may have been paid for though
also IIRC the Wright's had a lot of issues over patent theft back then. Big deal says I since they used a lot of info
from Lillienthal and others just getting started though also IIRC that may have been freely traded through publications
of hobby magazines.

Daiichidoku
06-30-2009, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
A long time ago they would twist (warp) the wings to achieve control. Maybe some day they will do that again.

not the same of course, but interesting nonetheless

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Sherpa

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/Short_Sherpa_wingtip_from_above.jpg

M_Gunz
06-30-2009, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
For all that matters, I've made rectangular flying wing paper planes that flew stable since 1968.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

Argument's over chaps. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhh but the design of those goes back to 1910!

HuninMunin
06-30-2009, 12:01 PM
Took me 10 posts to figure out that Whatever is yer new sig http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Was thinking "since when's Max so indifferent bout things http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

PS
Did you notice that it only took 5 pages in a late war german tech thread for the wing sweep parade to show up?

@Brems
^^ I marvel at your ability to still go with it Bremsi http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Bremspropeller
06-30-2009, 12:20 PM
Yeah. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I predict the following for the next ten pages:

- long, cut apart posts with coloured text
- the excessive use of key words such as "dumb luck", "savvy", "expert" and "proof"
- the banning of at least two members

Gammelpreusse
06-30-2009, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Yeah. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I predict the following for the next ten pages:

- long, cut apart posts with coloured text
- the excessive use of key words such as "dumb luck", "savvy", "expert" and "proof"
- the banning of at least two members

That may happpen or not, but it sure will be entertaining now that everything interesting has been cleared up to the educated mind and the chart throwers can move in http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

M_Gunz
06-30-2009, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Yeah. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I predict the following for the next ten pages:

- long, cut apart posts with coloured text
- the excessive use of key words such as "dumb luck", "savvy", "expert" and "proof"
- the banning of at least two members

And the two members may be the same actual person!

Urufu_Shinjiro
06-30-2009, 01:45 PM
I'll give you a hint, one alias has already been banned in this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Blottogg
07-05-2009, 04:14 AM
Sorry to kick this one to the top again, but after watching the show (and reading the tread) I wanted to add a couple of things:

- The show mentioned a 20% reduction in detection range compared to a conventional fighter, which is about what I though they'd find (it's easy for me to make correct predictions if I make them vague enough...a trick I learned from Miss Cleo). There are three major factors affecting an aircraft's RCS: 1) Shape, 2) Materials and 3) Size, or surface area. I don't know what "conventional fighter" they based the 20% reduction on, but as others have commented, most of that reduction was due to a smaller surface area to reflect the radar. This is especially true for lateral RCS, where a conventional aircraft has a fuselage and control surfaces, which also make a bunch of right angle "corner reflectors".

- At the risk of beating a dead horse, the only big difference between Northrop's and Horton's yaw controls is position on the wing chord. Split ailerons are further back, putting them a little further behind the CG and aerodynamic center. Both worked well, though I'd be inclined to go with the split ailerons, since those would be a little further behind the CG (span and sweep being equal) and possibly a bit more stable for an equal control surface size. Both obviously worked well. As far as the drag rudder's effect on RCS, like others I don't think this was a going concern in the design process, and for the long-wavelength radar we're talking about, both control surface types would appear as point sources, so I don't think either would have a definite advantage. With modern designs trying to counter modern (short wavelength) radars, fewer holes in the structure is better, and I think the split aileron design is better, though these still remain slightly open even at speed, affecting RCS (more to the rear than the front I'd guess).

- Kettenhunde, thanks again for the links to the stability and control info. You never cease to amaze me with the data you find. The waggle tip control was interesting. I'm not surprised the tips inertia hampered its response time, but it's still a clever solution. The pictures you posted show the trend towards lower aspect ratio with the Horten designs, as the emphasis shifted from maximum L/D to better control response and harmony. It's also interesting that much of this was done by experience and trial-and-error. I don't think this approach was unique to the Horton brothers, instead probably being typical for aircraft designers of the period.

- The data you posted also show how flying wings could be controlled before flight control computers came along. Both Northrop and Horton built flying wings that flew well (for the most part), and I think both were obsessed to some degree with the idea of reducing drag (THE aerodynamic problem of the 30's) by eliminating as much "unnecessary" surface area as possible. Without being able to ask them directly, I'm left to guess that in both cases, any RCS reduction was incidental to the work done to reduce drag, not a design goal in and of itself. Deliberate LO design would come later.

Bremspropeller
07-05-2009, 05:24 AM
Horton:
http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/2237832/horton-main_Full.jpg

Horten:
http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/9840/walterhortenhoixxe5.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Kettenhunde
07-05-2009, 10:04 AM
Kettenhunde, thanks again for the links

Your welcome but I think someone else first posted the website, I just pointed out the information within it.

All the best,

Crumpp

Blottogg
07-06-2009, 07:47 AM
Thanks for both corrections.

Brems, I must have been thinking of one of my favorite childhood books "Horten hears an Uhu", itself a confusing cross-reference of German designers.

Bremspropeller
07-06-2009, 08:19 AM
No surprise RLM fecked up with all that stuff. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

So what have you been up to lately?
It's been a while since you've posted in here.

M_Gunz
08-02-2009, 01:42 PM
Bumpsky -- to bring all these points back up and save some members a LOT of typing!