Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: davidwales on January 22, 2012, 05:40:59 PM
-
i cant see anbody in this forum who has asked for the flying wing yet
Role Fighter/Bomber
Manufacturer Gothaer Waggonfabrik
Designer Horten brothers
First flight 1 March 1944
Number built 3
Role Glider
National origin Germany
Manufacturer Horten Flugzeugbau
Designer Walter Horten and Reimar Horten
First flight 1937
Number built 19
Developed from Horten H.II
Role Blended wing aircraft
National origin United States of America
Designer Raoul J. Hoffman
First flight 1934
Number built 1
Role Experimental glider
Manufacturer Slingsby
Designer L.E. Baynes
First flight July 1943
Primary user Royal Aircraft Establishment
Number built 1
remember indiana jones it was this air craft that made a big impact during that film
the flying wing could carry 3x 3000lb bombs
it could fly 1000 naut miles
it could be adapted to take of from a cv if wings were hinged
it was a great aircraft capable of 600 mph in a dive with 4 nose mounted cannon
(http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/708/xb35.jpg/)
-
Alrighty Captain Shadespam, did it see combat? Was it in squadron strength? Thought so.
-
i cant see anbody in this forum who has asked for the flying wing yet
Role Fighter/Bomber
Manufacturer Gothaer Waggonfabrik
Designer Horten brothers
First flight 1 March 1944
Number built 3
Role Glider
National origin Germany
Manufacturer Horten Flugzeugbau
Designer Walter Horten and Reimar Horten
First flight 1937
Number built 19
Developed from Horten H.II
Role Blended wing aircraft
National origin United States of America
Designer Raoul J. Hoffman
First flight 1934
Number built 1
Role Experimental glider
Manufacturer Slingsby
Designer L.E. Baynes
First flight July 1943
Primary user Royal Aircraft Establishment
Number built 1
remember indiana jones it was this air craft that made a big impact during that film
the flying wing could carry 3x 3000lb bombs
it could fly 1000 naut miles
it could be adapted to take of from a cv if wings were hinged
it was a great aircraft capable of 600 mph in a dive with 4 nose mounted cannon
(http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/708/xb35.jpg/)
Sorry, but it doesn't fulfill the the requirements to be put into the game. One of the basic requirements is that it had to have seen combat. Which it didn't.
To everyone else, lay off of him just this once or at least be helpful instead of flaming. Actually, it would be great if someone could post all the requirements for entry.
-
Alrighty Captain Shadespam, did it see combat? Was it in squadron strength? Thought so.
Looks like I was too late.
-
Hes actually listing 4 different aircraft here... let me fix:
Role Fighter/Bomber
Manufacturer Gothaer Waggonfabrik
Designer Horten brothers
First flight 1 March 1944
Number built 3
Role Glider
National origin Germany
Manufacturer Horten Flugzeugbau
Designer Walter Horten and Reimar Horten
First flight 1937
Number built 19
Developed from Horten H.II
Role Blended wing aircraft
National origin United States of America
Designer Raoul J. Hoffman
First flight 1934
Number built 1
Role Experimental glider
Manufacturer Slingsby
Designer L.E. Baynes
First flight July 1943
Primary user Royal Aircraft Establishment
Number built 1
But there are no model numbers listed. Its not had to assume the first one is the HO-229. The second is the HO H.III. The third... the "Hoffman Flying Wing". And the fourth is the "Baynes Bat". The first was jet powered and only experimental. The other 3 are all gliders. None of them saw service as far as I know.
And for the record... the info you have posted david is a direct copy and paste from 4 wikipedia pages. If you want to be taken in the least bit seriously... do your research. Simply copying and pasting is pretty obvious to everyone... and will only earn you more scorn and ridicule.
Oh and good call on removing the link to picture of the XB-35 before anyone else saw it :huh
-
Nope all of them had under 4 built and never saw combat. They were all prototypes. what was there purpose? fighter, bomber, recon? Please listen to us when we tell you the requirements and believe me we have...
-
once again..the child still hasnt learned that there is requirements for somthing to be added to the game.
we get your ambition. cool..but even after u make a legitamate idea i doubt it will even be added. so all you are doing is wasting your time honestly
-
ok i did get the info of wiki, but i have read about its role in books which i cant copy and paste , it says in my aircraft for the luftwaffe , that it was designed to carry 3 1000lb bombs and it says it was built, to attack allied aircraft during the battle of britain but its cooling system was so fragile , that 1 bullet woould see it unfit for action, and production ceased , but was a major threat , as there was proto types ready for action . :salute
-
ok i did get the info of wiki, but i have read about its role in books which i cant copy and paste , it says in my aircraft for the luftwaffe , that it was designed to carry 3 1000lb bombs and it says it was built, to attack allied aircraft during the battle of britain but its cooling system was so fragile , that 1 bullet woould see it unfit for action, and production ceased , but was a major threat , as there was proto types ready for action . :salute
exactly!!
(http://i1159.photobucket.com/albums/p627/thunderboltD40/stop.jpg)
-
ok i did get the info of wiki, but i have read about its role in books which i cant copy and paste , it says in my aircraft for the luftwaffe , that it was designed to carry 3 1000lb bombs and it says it was built, to attack allied aircraft during the battle of britain but its cooling system was so fragile , that 1 bullet woould see it unfit for action, and production ceased , but was a major threat , as there was proto types ready for action . :salute
take a picture with your camera phone. also make a reference to the book including page number and paragraph. believe it not lots of people here have lots of books too. just trying to help you out. but onerously people like to have planes that actually saw combat.
semp
-
ok ill do that then if you guys say what aircraft you want ill email you all the info , i got loads of aircraft books . :salute
-
i cant see anbody in this forum who has asked for the flying wing yet
Ok kid, just be sure to read this before you post something again... Why nobody asked for them?
They need to be at least:
1.- In Squadron Strength
2.- Saw Combat (for this its mean he needs to open fire to any enemy)
A PROTOTYPE: 1, or 2 even 3 planes isn't Squadron Strength even so, they never saw combat so stop trolling, if you want to ask for something be sure that they got those 2 points and then read about them and not only in wikipedia, then you post the plane, specs, and some pics... until then be sure to stay away from the BBS.
-
ok ill do that then if you guys say what aircraft you want ill email you all the info , i got loads of aircraft books . :salute
Most of us do as well, but here's some info for ya: read the books and if you think a plane should be added, see how many planes were produced, by which companies and what data they provide on them, then copy that data onto here and try to provide some photos. Make sure you also add the book title and author, this helps other cross reference the data to make sure its close to correct. As others said - it needs to be squadron strength and in combat.
If you want an example, look up the He-111 or Wellington Bomber.
-
It would behoove one and all to ignore and not reply to posts in this particular forum from some people.
Otherwise, all I'm seeing is
(http://www.lakbaypilipinas.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/siargao-game-fishing-tournament.jpg)
wrongway
-
Instead of those... what we really need... is this:
P-262 Thunderkitty
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/ThunderKitty.jpg)
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/ThunderKittyFormation.jpg)
The Curtiss P-262 Thunderkitty was produced by integrating stolen, then retrofitted German jet technology into the existing airframe of the P-40 KittyHawk. Substantial hardening of the airframe was required to produce the P-262, and while a 3 engine version was built and flown only as a prototype, the 2 engine version saw over 250 produced, and were assigned to squadron duty in the Pacific theater starting in February of 1945.
Surprisingly, the P-40 airframe adapted quite well to the jet technology, and was later used as a test plane during testing for the F-86 Sabre
which was based almost completely upon its design.
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 31.67 ft (9.66 m)
Wingspan: 37.33 ft (11.38 m)
Height: 12.33 ft (3.76 m)
Wing area: 235.94 ft² (21.92 m²)
Empty weight: 4,404 kg (9,709 lb)
Loaded weight: 7,130 kg (15,720 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 6977 kg (15,381 lb
Powerplant: 2Χ Lockheed Martin 004 B-1 turbojets, 8.8 kN (1,980 lbf) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 900 km/h (559 mph)
Range: 650 mi (560 nmi, 1,100 km)
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft)
Rate of climb: 1,200 m/min (3,900 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.28
Armament
Guns: 5 Χ .50 in (12.7 mm)
Cannons: 2 Χ 37mm Cannon
Bombs: 250 lb (113 kg) to 1,000 Ib (453 kg), a total of 2,000 lb (907 kg) on three hardpoints (one under the fuselage and two underwing)
-
Instead of those... what we really need... is this:
P-262 Thunderkitty
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/ThunderKitty.jpg)
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/ThunderKittyFormation.jpg)
The Curtiss P-262 Thunderkitty was produced by integrating stolen, then retrofitted German jet technology into the existing airframe of the P-40 KittyHawk. Substantial hardening of the airframe was required to produce the P-262, and while a 3 engine version was built and flown only as a prototype, the 2 engine version saw over 250 produced, and were assigned to squadron duty in the Pacific theater starting in February of 1945.
Surprisingly, the P-40 airframe adapted quite well to the jet technology, and was later used as a test plane during testing for the F-86 Sabre
which was based almost completely upon its design.
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 31.67 ft (9.66 m)
Wingspan: 37.33 ft (11.38 m)
Height: 12.33 ft (3.76 m)
Wing area: 235.94 ft² (21.92 m²)
Empty weight: 4,404 kg (9,709 lb)
Loaded weight: 7,130 kg (15,720 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 6977 kg (15,381 lb
Powerplant: 2Χ Lockheed Martin 004 B-1 turbojets, 8.8 kN (1,980 lbf) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 900 km/h (559 mph)
Range: 650 mi (560 nmi, 1,100 km)
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft)
Rate of climb: 1,200 m/min (3,900 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.28
Armament
Guns: 5 Χ .50 in (12.7 mm)
Cannons: 2 Χ 37mm Cannon
Bombs: 250 lb (113 kg) to 1,000 Ib (453 kg), a total of 2,000 lb (907 kg) on three hardpoints (one under the fuselage and two underwing)
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Wow, I've never heard of the P-262 before, but this guy has pictures and a backstory! At least 250 were built and deployed for combat in the Pacific!
+1 for Thunderkitty!
-
2 37mm cannon! :O :O :O :O
-
Instead of those... what we really need... is this:
P-262 Thunderkitty
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/ThunderKitty.jpg)
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/ThunderKittyFormation.jpg)
The Curtiss P-262 Thunderkitty was produced by integrating stolen, then retrofitted German jet technology into the existing airframe of the P-40 KittyHawk. Substantial hardening of the airframe was required to produce the P-262, and while a 3 engine version was built and flown only as a prototype, the 2 engine version saw over 250 produced, and were assigned to squadron duty in the Pacific theater starting in February of 1945.
Surprisingly, the P-40 airframe adapted quite well to the jet technology, and was later used as a test plane during testing for the F-86 Sabre
which was based almost completely upon its design.
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 31.67 ft (9.66 m)
Wingspan: 37.33 ft (11.38 m)
Height: 12.33 ft (3.76 m)
Wing area: 235.94 ft² (21.92 m²)
Empty weight: 4,404 kg (9,709 lb)
Loaded weight: 7,130 kg (15,720 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 6977 kg (15,381 lb
Powerplant: 2Χ Lockheed Martin 004 B-1 turbojets, 8.8 kN (1,980 lbf) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 900 km/h (559 mph)
Range: 650 mi (560 nmi, 1,100 km)
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft)
Rate of climb: 1,200 m/min (3,900 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.28
Armament
Guns: 5 Χ .50 in (12.7 mm)
Cannons: 2 Χ 37mm Cannon
Bombs: 250 lb (113 kg) to 1,000 Ib (453 kg), a total of 2,000 lb (907 kg) on three hardpoints (one under the fuselage and two underwing)
I checked my sources, and you are correct, we should get the P-262 in the game.
Also I found this, its a hybrid U-262 - we should get it added to the game!
(http://www.lvp.lt/old/components/com_akogallery/img_pictures/me262shark.jpg)
-
Hehe... and dont forget the P-262A prototype! :devil
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/ThunderKittyV2.jpg)
I checked my sources, and you are correct, we should get the P-262 in the game.
Also I found this, its a hybrid U-262 - we should get it added to the game!
(http://www.lvp.lt/old/components/com_akogallery/img_pictures/me262shark.jpg)
Nice! Looks like that one has seen combat too! :aok
-
Can you guys give it a break already? Honestly, would you folks be caught dead doing this to some kid in real life?
:bhead
-
ok ill do that then if you guys say what aircraft you want ill email you all the info , i got loads of aircraft books . :salute
Nobody wants to use you as a human encyclopedia. If it meets addition requirments, almost ALL of us have heard of it, and many know its specifications and a bit of background info. Besides that, asking you is, if anything, SLOWER than using google, since we have to wait for you to see the message, find your book, locate the information within said book, and then post it back to us.
-
Instead of those... what we really need... is this:
P-262 Thunderkitty
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/ThunderKitty.jpg)
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/ThunderKittyFormation.jpg)
The Curtiss P-262 Thunderkitty was produced by integrating stolen, then retrofitted German jet technology into the existing airframe of the P-40 KittyHawk. Substantial hardening of the airframe was required to produce the P-262, and while a 3 engine version was built and flown only as a prototype, the 2 engine version saw over 250 produced, and were assigned to squadron duty in the Pacific theater starting in February of 1945.
Surprisingly, the P-40 airframe adapted quite well to the jet technology, and was later used as a test plane during testing for the F-86 Sabre
which was based almost completely upon its design.
General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 31.67 ft (9.66 m)
Wingspan: 37.33 ft (11.38 m)
Height: 12.33 ft (3.76 m)
Wing area: 235.94 ft² (21.92 m²)
Empty weight: 4,404 kg (9,709 lb)
Loaded weight: 7,130 kg (15,720 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 6977 kg (15,381 lb
Powerplant: 2Χ Lockheed Martin 004 B-1 turbojets, 8.8 kN (1,980 lbf) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 900 km/h (559 mph)
Range: 650 mi (560 nmi, 1,100 km)
Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,565 ft)
Rate of climb: 1,200 m/min (3,900 ft/min)
Thrust/weight: 0.28
Armament
Guns: 5 Χ .50 in (12.7 mm)
Cannons: 2 Χ 37mm Cannon
Bombs: 250 lb (113 kg) to 1,000 Ib (453 kg), a total of 2,000 lb (907 kg) on three hardpoints (one under the fuselage and two underwing)
...Is that real? :huh
-
...Is that real? :huh
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
It does look pretty convincing. :(
-
It does look pretty convincing. :(
I took a second look myself, I generally don't keep up with much of the prototypes and "wacky" planes that were thought or designed.
Thunderkitty is what made me chuckle, I was hoping for the P-262 "nyan cat"
-
Hehe... found it here and did the rest with photoshop:
http://agapemodels.com/?p=377
As for the specs I took from some of the P-40, some from the 262, and the story I just made up.
:aok
-
...Is that real? :huh
Off topic, but I remember when I was a teenager, a kid about my age asked me that same question regarding the starship Enterprise. :lol
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/54/USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701-A).jpg)
-
Off topic, but I remember when I was a teenager, a kid about my age asked me that same question regarding the starship Enterprise. :lol
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/54/USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701-A).jpg)
When I was real young I thought actors that died in movies were actually dead. I knew they were actors, but I thought they sacrificed themselves for the film. My understanding of reality (and death) wasn't very developed back then :angel:
-
ok ill do that then if you guys say what aircraft you want ill email you all the info , i got loads of aircraft books . :salute
Can we have the DavidwellShadsUpAlready Flying Wing?
-
I think we should go and re-label all of dave's "wish's" and hijack them ALL!!!! :rock :devil and then :cheers: to get :rolleyes: :banana: but when we wake up we'll be like :headscratch: :joystick:
-
i cant see anbody in this forum who has asked for the flying wing yet
Role Fighter/Bomber
Manufacturer Gothaer Waggonfabrik
Designer Horten brothers
First flight 1 March 1944
Number built 3
Role Glider
National origin Germany
Manufacturer Horten Flugzeugbau
Designer Walter Horten and Reimar Horten
First flight 1937
Number built 19
Developed from Horten H.II
Role Blended wing aircraft
National origin United States of America
Designer Raoul J. Hoffman
First flight 1934
Number built 1
Role Experimental glider
Manufacturer Slingsby
Designer L.E. Baynes
First flight July 1943
Primary user Royal Aircraft Establishment
Number built 1
remember indiana jones it was this air craft that made a big impact during that film
the flying wing could carry 3x 3000lb bombs
it could fly 1000 naut miles
it could be adapted to take of from a cv if wings were hinged
it was a great aircraft capable of 600 mph in a dive with 4 nose mounted cannon
(http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/708/xb35.jpg/)
Oh god, someone laced the water supply with LSD again... :devil
-
Oh god, someone laced the water supply with LSD again... :devil
Who cares, thats one of the best posts i've seen in a very long time.
-
ok i know it wont get passed , bad idea !!!
-
Man, go big or go home:
(http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/403022_10150527276757949_700532948_9110757_123006669_n.jpg)
Prototype built, destroyed by resistance before complete. Would perk at 100 next to the B-29.
(http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/395335_10150527276787949_700532948_9110758_1086366357_n.jpg)
Just looked cool.
(http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/396468_10150527276832949_700532948_9110759_712404242_n.jpg)
Saw service, it evacuated the red skull before the end of the war and Captain America could capture him.
-
ok i admit this idea is rubbish ,got carried away reading about it like that pic though , how do you delete the thread ? :salute
-
ok i admit this idea is rubbish ,got carried away reading about it like that pic though , how do you delete the thread ? :salute
dave u cant i've tried oh before you make a thread next time listen to a little advice check the stats with a book the internet ask a friend and finally make sure not to put some stupid stuff thank you
now the flying wing looked cool but never got of the drawing board good try though
-
I've read up a bit on the captured HO-229 protoype. RAF pilots refused to test fly it because, although it looked cool it was in fact a design disaster (and the engines were pretty unreliable too).
For instance, (from what I've read) it had no internal bulkheads between the pilot and the engines, there was an oil pump directly behind the pilot, there was no cockpit floor (canvas cloth only) until the front wheel was pulled up. I guess this was why Gotha wanted to redesign it before it went into production.
I'm sure that if the Germans had more resources the design would have been much better - but they didn't and it wasn't.
Also, the broad flying wing design encounters severe aerodynamic problems when approaching subsonic speeds - particularly thick wing designs. This is why modern supersonic aircraft are long and thin, not short and broad. Can you imagine being the fastest fighter in the sky but knowing that if you go just slightly over speed you'll suddenly break up? Zoom'n'Boom would take on a different meaning.
-
If you think Gotha designed the Horten flying wing you better do some more reading.
-
Please read again. I never said Gotha designed it.
They didn't design it - the Horton brothers did. They wanted to redesign it. The Horton brothers adapted their glider designs to a jet-plane without getting in the proper expertise. The result was therefore not as good as it could have been.
-
The Hortens didn't adapt their glider design. They designed the Ho-229 from scratch to meet the payload and range design criteria they were given. The problems with the engines were out of their control but their design was good. The Hortens were the experts in flying wing design, they could hardly have gotten "proper expertise" from anyone else. Their sailplanes set performance records and their powered aircraft would have done the same.
-
the french resistence destroyed it before they could test it , have you heard of the bell ???? :salute
-
True - but they had no experience in designing jet powered aircraft, although with the engines mounted inboard and with the shared components behind the cockpit I suspect that no-one had worked on that sort of configuration before. I understand that they didn't discuss these issues outside of their own team where a more experienced engineer may have pointed out a few things for them.
The aerodynamic design was excellent - ground breaking in fact - but with that version there would have been issues with pilot safety, particularly in the event of turbines shedding blades, leaky fuel lines catching fire, oil leaks under pressure (most of these directly into the cockpit) etc. They may not have had the resources to do a proper job but the result was an aircraft that was considered unsafe by some. The Gotha team wanted to improve on that, but it is unclear to what extent. Its also unclear what impact that any proposed 'improvements' would have had on the all-up weight and certainly unit cost.
I think had they been given more time and resources to do a better job on the internal structure it would have been a fantastic plane - although a bit dodgy at high speed.
I can't get over the lack of cockpit floor (if that's correct). A bit draughty on take-off I reckon.
-
Don't boost the Horton design into the god-like status. It was a design. One of many. It wasn't the only crazy Nazi flying wing design, it was just the lucky 1-in-a-million that made it off paper. It did not meet the criteria for its design, it did not meet basic areodynamic safey standards, and it would have been a massive flop.
There's a reason that the flying wing design isn't used. It needs fly by wire design and constant computer corrects to keep it from slipping or spinning out of the sky. Even when they have a vertical surface or engine pods to give them some stability, they were dodgy. Put the pure wing shape with no obsctructions? Disaster.
The internal engines were also a bad idea. These had very short lifespans and had to be removed and accessed constantly. Not to mention the fact that the reason all engines were external up to this point was the MASSIVE heat they gave off. They had to be separated from the airframe to keep the plane from bursting into flames.
No, the Horton design smacked of ignorance on the designers' part... It was an interesting idea that failed on too many counts and could never have recovered. It's as much a pipe dream as Hitler's "Amerikabomber" that would pound New York into submission and end the US involvement in WW2...
And you know how well THAT went for Hitler, right?
-
There's a reason that the flying wing design isn't used. It needs fly by wire design and constant computer corrects to keep it from slipping or spinning out of the sky. Even when they have a vertical surface or engine pods to give them some stability, they were dodgy. Put the pure wing shape with no obsctructions? Disaster.
Bah... Jack Northrop was a fool. His engineering prowess undermined by a Krusty quote.
-
the french resistence destroyed it before they could test it , have you heard of the bell ???? :salute
I have heard of the bell end.
-
Don't boost the Horton design into the god-like status. It was a design. One of many. It wasn't the only crazy Nazi flying wing design, it was just the lucky 1-in-a-million that made it off paper. It did not meet the criteria for its design, it did not meet basic areodynamic safey standards, and it would have been a massive flop.
There's a reason that the flying wing design isn't used. It needs fly by wire design and constant computer corrects to keep it from slipping or spinning out of the sky. Even when they have a vertical surface or engine pods to give them some stability, they were dodgy. Put the pure wing shape with no obsctructions? Disaster.
The internal engines were also a bad idea. These had very short lifespans and had to be removed and accessed constantly. Not to mention the fact that the reason all engines were external up to this point was the MASSIVE heat they gave off. They had to be separated from the airframe to keep the plane from bursting into flames.
No, the Horton design smacked of ignorance on the designers' part... It was an interesting idea that failed on too many counts and could never have recovered. It's as much a pipe dream as Hitler's "Amerikabomber" that would pound New York into submission and end the US involvement in WW2...
And you know how well THAT went for Hitler, right?
Krusty you're just making stuff up again. You know nothing about the Horten flying wing design. Northrup had stability issues but the Hortens solved theirs. When Reimar Horten saw a newspaper picture in Argentina of Northrup's flying wing he sent Northrup a letter explaining why Northrup's design was unstable and how to fix it. He got the letter back months later, opened, resealed and marked return to sender. Northrup never fixed his design but Horten flying wings flew with stability since the 1930's when they were setting new sailplane records. The actual problem with the 229 prototype was an engine fire, the aerodynamic design was fine and contrary to your opinion it was the only aircraft to meet the design specifications.