PDA

View Full Version : Why not a Go-229 fighter today ??



Gerd_Schopfel
10-15-2004, 01:34 PM
The Go-229 "was" by all means the most advanced lighter than air machine of its kind. Of course after the war, the Horten brothers probably had no way to continue their quest to enhance the operational capabilities of their unparalleled Go-229 fighter jet. The Go-229 "was" such a sound and effective design that I can only ponder why the world (especially the US)did not grasp the concept of the Go-229 into their post-war fighter production!? Even today, there is great promise from designing a 21st century "Go-229" fighter jet.
http://aerostories.free.fr/constructeurs/horten/ho9test.jpg
Of course as we all know, there is the B-2 Stealth bomber in service today, but the B-2's flight handling technology for some reason is way to complicated and thus expensive. In other words, it takes a great deal of computer imputs and this and that just to keep the plane flying straight!...The Go-229 flew with a unique non-computer aided mechanism (as simple as that).

Any comments??

Von_Zero
10-15-2004, 01:40 PM
a plane is not a "lighter then air" machine... it's a"heavier then air" machine... only baloons are lighter than air... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif
edit: using fly-by-wire theoretically even a brick would be flyable... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

darkhorizon11
10-15-2004, 01:57 PM
"The Go-229 "was" by all means the most advanced lighter than air machine of its kind. Of course after the war, the Horten brothers probably had no way to continue their quest to enhance the operational capabilities of their unparalleled Go-229 fighter jet. The Go-229 "was" such a sound and effective design that I can only ponder why the world (especially the US)did not grasp the concept of the Go-229 into their post-war fighter production!? Even today, there is great promise from designing a 21st century "Go-229" fighter jet."

There were a few specials on the history channel this week that mentioned the YB-49 which was a flying wing.

As Von Zero pointed out, the Go229 is definetly not lighter than air.

The reason the idea was ignored is instability. Flying wings are known to have an negative characterstic called middle effect where longitudinal stability along the lateral axis is lost. In some cases, like stalls where there a high power setting and a low airspeed the aircraft was known to do sort of a backflip and spin out of control. In fact the reason Muroc AFB was changed to Edwards was because of fella named Edwards who was killed testing the 49.

It isn't till modern times that an advanced computer can monitor the state of the B-2 in flight that a flying wing is truly successful.
As a fighter, the oppurtunities are endless I would think, you never know, the Air Force could be developing a flying wing fighter we just don't know it.

The only negative impact would be the lack of yaw stability on vertical axis.

The opportunitiies are endless.

LStarosta
10-15-2004, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerd_Schopfel:
The Go-229 "was" by all means the most advanced lighter than air machine of its kind. Of course after the war, the Horten brothers probably had no way to continue their quest to enhance the operational capabilities of their unparalleled Go-229 fighter jet. The Go-229 "was" such a sound and effective design that I can only ponder why the world (especially the US)did not grasp the concept of the Go-229 into their post-war fighter production!? Even today, there is great promise from designing a 21st century "Go-229" fighter jet.
http://aerostories.free.fr/constructeurs/horten/ho9test.jpg
Of course as we all know, there is the B-2 Stealth bomber in service today, but the B-2's flight handling technology for some reason is way to complicated and thus expensive. In other words, it takes a great deal of computer imputs and this and that just to keep the plane flying straight!...The Go-229 flew with a unique non-computer aided mechanism (as simple as that).

Any comments?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Americans did have early flying wing concepts as well.


EDIT: Whoops, someone mentioned that already. I guess I'll just reiterate.

Gerd_Schopfel
10-15-2004, 03:08 PM
Von_Zero wrote:
a plane is not a "lighter then air" machine... it's a"heavier then air" machine... only
===================
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif
You are correct!

Since you caught me saying something that contradicts the fundamental of flight, i will share with you my Warrior Cry!

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...Yeee yeyeyei.

VW-IceFire
10-15-2004, 04:02 PM
The equivalent these days is aircraft like many of Boeings UAV's and the Bird of Prey technology demonstrator: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/photorelease/q4/pr_021018-1m.html

TAGERT.
10-15-2004, 06:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerd_Schopfel:
The Go-229 "was" by all means the most advanced lighter than air machine of its kind. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Lighter than air?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerd_Schopfel:
Of course after the war, the Horten brothers probably had no way to continue their quest to enhance the operational capabilities of their unparalleled Go-229 fighter jet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unparalleled? Guess you never heard of Northrop and his PRE-WAR work on flying wings?

Build in 1940
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/WINGS/NORTHROP/FACTORY.jpg

Still flying today.. some 65 years later.
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/WINGS/NORTHROP/n9m-1.jpg

How many of the Horton wings from the 40's are still flying?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerd_Schopfel:
The Go-229 "was" such a sound and effective design <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Based on what?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerd_Schopfel:
that I can only ponder why the world (especially the US)did not grasp the concept <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No need to grasp it.. We all ready had it! As with Goddard's rockets..

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/general/goddard/goddard.htm

But I'm sure you have not heard about him either in light of you never hearing about Northrop

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerd_Schopfel:
of the Go-229 into their post-war fighter production!? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again.. I guess you never heard about Northrop and his POST-WAR work on flying wings?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/WINGS/NORTHROP/wing6.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/WINGS/NORTHROP/wing12.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/WINGS/NORTHROP/XB-35_10.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerd_Schopfel:
Even today, there is great promise from designing a 21st century "Go-229" fighter jet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fighter? Nah, never was that great of a fighter concept. The flying wing's low drag is a great idea for long rang bombers though.. And the low profile makes stealth technology easy to apply.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerd_Schopfel:
Of course as we all know, there is the B-2 Stealth bomber in service today, but the B-2's flight handling technology for some reason is way to complicated and thus expensive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Enh! That is not the reason they don't make flying wing fighters though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerd_Schopfel:
In other words, it takes a great deal of computer imputs and this and that just to keep the plane flying straight!... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only in that most modern aircraft are design from the get go to be unstable, thus req a computer to keep it flying. As Northrop discovered in his POST-WAR work the flying wing did have some aspects that may have been considered a negative. Stall charterstics and over correcting by the pilot aka Edwards Air Force Base. But, in talking with the Northrop N9M pilot out at chino he said it is a joy to fly. He was also a test pilot for the B2 project and said it was a joy to fly. He could not go into details as to why the computers are needed on the B2. But considering Northrop build many Many MANY different types of flying wings without them... Well I just have my doubts as to your conclusion that they wee needed to fly straight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerd_Schopfel:
The Go-229 flew with a unique non-computer aided mechanism (as simple as that). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As were all of these that Northrop build before, during and after the war
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/WINGS/NORTHROP/jb-1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/WINGS/NORTHROP/northrop_n-1m_1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/WINGS/NORTHROP/MX-324_05.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/WINGS/NORTHROP/N-9M_05.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/WINGS/NORTHROP/p79-3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/WINGS/NORTHROP/b35-1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/AIRCRAFT/WINGS/NORTHROP/northrop_yrb-49.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerd_Schopfel:
Any comments?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You need to do more research before you draw conclusions.

BlakJakOfSpades
10-15-2004, 06:53 PM
i love the way u just slap them down like flies tagert..every time, its great fun to read

Daiichidoku
10-15-2004, 07:09 PM
The go 229 was another in a long line of "wing" designs, tried since the earliest days of aviation...in many ways, it is the simplest, yet most refined ideal of a flying machine.

The Goth was notable at least for the fact it was the first showing true viability in the form, in terms of performance, and flight characteristics...

The second generation Northrop wings were serviceable, but unpractical for USAF purposes

The third gen., the B2, which shares the exact same wingspan as the previous YB49, truly validates the soundness of design

FliegerAas
10-15-2004, 08:22 PM
Just for completion:
1931-1932
http://members.cox.net/rebid/ho_i_horten_brothers.jpg

As you see flying wings have been developed everywhere simultaneously. So please don't start a "we made it first" discussion again. I start feeling like I am in a kindergarten forum.

TAGERT.
10-15-2004, 10:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FliegerAas:
So please don't start a "we made it first" discussion again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually your the FIRST to say anything about being FIRST. The USA learned a long time ago it does not mater who was first.. As in who was first to the new world.. England, France, Spain.. All of them staking out parts of the new world FIRST.. Didnt mater one bit. We in the USA realised what maters is what you do with or about it.. So much so that when we were the FIRST to land on the moon we didnt claim it in the name of the United States.. We claimed it in the name of Humanity.

Another good exaple is Goddard and his rockets.. He had alot of FIRSTS too.. But I think the USA was the FIRST to realise at the time that more conventional weapons were a better way to spend the money.. Oh that and the A-BOMB! Another FIRST by the way! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

FliegerAas
10-15-2004, 11:01 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

BlakJakOfSpades
10-16-2004, 01:38 AM
yep, thats what i was talkin about, like flies i tell ya

SheerLuckHolmes
10-16-2004, 01:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
As in who was first to the new world.. England, France, Spain.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No offence, but I believe it was INDIANS who were there a long before europeans http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Then vikings and others..

Cheers SheerLuck Holmes

TAGERT.
10-16-2004, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SheerLuckHolmes:
No offence, but I believe it was INDIANS who were there a long before europeans http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Then vikings and others.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>None taken! Heck, Im sure if you looked hard enough you coulf find there were people here even before the inidans.. All in all proving my point. FIRST dont mater. What you do with it does.

McThag
10-16-2004, 10:44 AM
vAnd for the records here: Muroc was renamed after Glenn Edwards. And every street on the post was named after a dead test pilot. It's kinda humbling when you see how many streets there are there.

Mashie_Nibblick
10-16-2004, 11:33 AM
As a side note, the aforementioned Lt. Edwards, killed in a test flight of a Northrop design at Muroc, was born in Medecine Hat, Alberta, Canada, a little ways down the road from where I'm sitting, although he grew up in Placer, CA. This is just off the top of my head. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

BTW, nice pics, Tagert.

Chuck_Older
10-16-2004, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerd_Schopfel:

Any comments?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

You know nothing about aircraft at all.

p1ngu666
10-16-2004, 02:33 PM
would delta wing jets count as flying wings, ones that have a similer layout to concorde?

ploughman
10-16-2004, 04:04 PM
I did read an article in a Scientific American, maybe 1986-88, concerning the RCS of flying wings and their suitability as long range bombers. Considerable reference was made to the Avro Vulcan, as a large delta it was assessed as being the 'nearest' to a flying wing at that time (unbeknownst to them the B-2 was appearing in a hangar nearby). The Vulcan was famously agile, had a much smaller radar cross section than a B-52, but didn't enjoy the range promised (only 4,000 nm) by a flying wing or even a conventional layout like a B-52 (over 8,000 nm). Nevertheless it was operational from 1956-1986 and really rocked.

WUAF_Badsight
10-16-2004, 04:19 PM
GAWD this thing was awesome

http://img94.exs.cx/img94/5700/Avro698Vulcan.jpg

p1ngu666
10-16-2004, 10:47 PM
its chuffin big too, b52 is VAST tho
i dunno much about teh vulcan actshally, i think i saw it fly at a airshow for the last time, **** noisy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

btw i think its mach2 campable? dunno what b52 can do

p1ngu666
10-16-2004, 10:58 PM
http://www.xl426.com/vstats.htm

http://www.stratofortress.org/hspecs.htm

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

BBB_Hyperion
10-17-2004, 12:12 AM
Hmm my paperflyer single wing model build by A4 paper just crashed. All your fault instability at y,z axis.