Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Hawklore on May 05, 2003, 07:31:06 AM
-
One of my friends reminded me of the "Wing" that german stealth like looking bomber.
Anyone got any info on that?
-
take your pick http://www.luft46.com/horten/horten.html
you are probably thinking of this tho: Ho229
(http://www.luft46.com/mrart/mr229-1.jpg)
-
It`s the Horten 229 I guess...
http://www.luft46.com/mrart/mr229-3.jpg
I believe there was actually a test flight with it (the above is rendered of course).
-
Make yer own:
http://www.paperang.com/
Gatso
-
yah this is actually the one that the US baised the Stealth bomber on and essentually this is the plane that they originally used to help them develop the technology. It had a way low profile in radar.
-
heheheh luftfobes wishes;)
It was only 2-3 prototype gliders, never fly with engine
and was much smaller then on this picture.
-
No, I am serious the History channel had a show on it. It said that the US got the blue prints for the plane, built one in late 45 and flew it for 3 trial runs then brought it back out of the hanger in the 70's to help them design the stealth bomber.
-
(shrugs) well just reporting what I saw.....
I study WWII aircraft not modern (at all) to tell you the truth......
-
Originally posted by ramzey
heheheh luftfobes wishes;)
It was only 2-3 prototype gliders, never fly with engine
and was much smaller then on this picture.
Ho229 did fly under its own power late in the war...
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
NOD2000, the History Channel shows are 80% sensational and more often than not lack sound facts. If you want to know where the basis for the B2 and stealth aircraft is go look up (use Google) Jack Northrop and his aircraft designs.
I might be wrong... But I had read that Jack Northrop develop his flying wing from the study of gliders that Germany Designs used before the war.
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
http://northrop.host.sk/index.htm
You might want to "study" some more. :) Note the MX324, P-56, P-79 and B-35 aircraft. These were not just late war, fantastical wishy-washy scribblings hurriedly done on some Lieberstrasse Cafe' napkin ;) Check out up the development dates and if you want to study more look into when Jack Northrop started developing his flying wing ideas.
However, to meet some people half way I wil agree that there is a lot of resemblence to the FW-190. And of course that would mean Kurt Tank should be thanked for the B2 and modern stealth technology ;)
Yep. Go look at a Northrop N9-M and you will see the true origin of the B-2 design.
-
Originally posted by TeeDog
I might be wrong... But I had read that Jack Northrop develop his flying wing from the study of gliders that Germany Designs used before the war.
Lippisch had a glider in 1927, Lippisch and Northrop had powered flying wings in 1929. The Horten brothers didn't start flying gliders until 1933.
-
sorry, I stick to WWII. IE Willy mescher****, Georing (the fat one), Kurt tank, and people like pilots like Dolittle and Zeamer.
I don't even bother with stuff post WWII..........
just something saw on a show
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Lippisch had a glider in 1927, Lippisch and Northrop had powered flying wings in 1929. The Horten brothers didn't start flying gliders until 1933.
I used to have a book called 'last talons of the eagle' if i remember correctly the Horten brothers were making flying wings earlier than that, but for another company. They started making their own later.
I may be mistaken, ill try to find it
-
Hi Nod,
>sorry, I stick to WWII. IE Willy mescher****, Georing (the fat one), Kurt tank, and people like pilots like Dolittle and Zeamer.
The true core about this might be that the Horten flying wings were aerodynamically ahead of their time in 1945, and Northrop may have benefitted from that even if he didn't get the original idea from the Hortens.
With regard to stealth, there is no doubt that the Germans were aware of RAM technology in WW2. However, contemporary radars (especially the early warning radars) weren't particularly capable, so it didn't take much to hide an aircraft that by modern standards wouldn't be considered "stealthy" at all :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
And the Horten was mostly made of wood - good radar reflections from wood.:D
Am curious to what Northrop would have got from the Hortens. The a/c never flew at operational speeds so one cannot say they were aerodynamically ahead of their time in 1945. The brothers even talk about adding a vertical surface.
-
Here's a great site for flying wings.
http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/nurflugel.html
The B2 owes more to the Horten design than to the Northrup.
--)-FLS-----
Musketeers
-
Originally posted by FLS
The B2 owes more to the Horten design than to the Northrup.
CoughBULL****Cough :)
N9M
-
Originally posted by Furball
I used to have a book called 'last talons of the eagle' if i remember correctly the Horten brothers were making flying wings earlier than that, but for another company. They started making their own later.
I may be mistaken, ill try to find it
You cant find it cause I stole it from you :D
But seriously thats one interesting book.
You can read about an attack glider project :cool:
Or Lippisch's coal powered ramjet project :eek:
-
Hi Milo,
>Am curious to what Northrop would have got from the Hortens. The a/c never flew at operational speeds so one cannot say they were aerodynamically ahead of their time in 1945.
Efficiency :-) That's what you'll learn from designing gliders!
(Actually, I just looked it up, and Northrop's N-9M test aircraft flew first in 1942. I'm not sure Northrop could have known enough about the Horten flying wings to learn anything new. On the other hand, some of the German sailplane research had been made available for anyone interested.)
>The brothers even talk about adding a vertical surface.
The Northrop flying wing pilots talk about directional instability and yaw oscillations. And if you look at the engine installations on the Northrop, their lateral area (behind the centre of gravity) obviously was considered a nice secondary feature :-)
(Actually, efficient flying wings might really have needed fly-by-wire, which was still in its infancy in the 1940s.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Northrup didn't have a flying wing until 1940. He flew a twin boomed aircraft in 1929 that was hardly a flying wing.
After the Hortens had been producing flying wings for seven
years, Northrup's new design in 1940 was remarkably similar to the Horten's.
--)-FLS-----
Musketeers
-
Originally posted by Furball
take your pick http://www.luft46.com/horten/horten.html
you are probably thinking of this tho: Ho229
(http://www.luft46.com/mrart/mr229-1.jpg)
Furball ... where did you get that picture ... Is it available in a size that will fit on the desktop ?
-
from there (http://www.luft46.com/mrart/lufartmr.html) and thats the only size
-
CFS3 has a Go229 wing in its arsenal of fantasy flights - along with a few others that are pretty cool
-
Originally posted by FLS
Northrup didn't have a flying wing until 1940. He flew a twin boomed aircraft in 1929 that was hardly a flying wing.
After the Hortens had been producing flying wings for seven
years, Northrup's new design in 1940 was remarkably similar to the Horten's.
--)-FLS-----
Musketeers
It's true that the N1M is similar to the Horten V.
But the B-2 is more similar to the N9M/B-35/B-49 than any of the Horten designs. Most notable similarities are the split elevons for yaw control and the landing gear configuration.
-
Hi Funked,
>But the B-2 is more similar to the N9M/B-35/B-49 than any of the Horten designs. Most notable similarities are the split elevons for yaw control and the landing gear configuration.
I think the interesting details are rather subtle, like use of wing sections and their tapering, washout etc., and won't be readily noticable.
The site
http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/nurflugel.html
is rather interesting, it has articles both by one of the Horten brothers and by Northrop.
Horten's introduction starts with controllability and stall behavior, Northrop's with lift and performance. I'd say that's glider vs. powered plane mentality ;-)
Northrop himself states that his designs and the Hortens' had many similarities. He also admits that after an N-9M spun in, they spent considerable time and effort on improving the design so that couldn't happen again.
As far as I know, the Hortens didn't have any similar accidents, which could be seen as a sign they were ahead of Northrop in some way. It could also be seen as a sign that Northrop worked independendly, encountered his own problems and found his own solution.
I don't think similarity necessarily implies plagiarism - Whittle and von Ohain provide great examples for duplicate but independend inventions.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Got ya all beat I have pictures of the Gotha that they captured. Saw it in Silver Springs and she is tiny, but that was its design small hard to hit and fast as ****.
Grun is right and it did fly under its own power, one was lost after engine failure in flight as well. So I guess that kills whats his names theory that it didn't fly under power.
-
I am glad those things came too late. They would have smashed through U.S. bomber formations with ease.
-
Originally posted by AGJV44_Rot 1
Got ya all beat I have pictures of the Gotha that they captured. Saw it in Silver Springs and she is tiny, but that was its design small hard to hit and fast as ****.
That is one place I would love to walk around. Post your pics if you've got some gooduns please! :)
I knew I'd seen pics of a jet powered Horten wing in rough shape, mention of NASM Silver Springs gave the old memory a kick. There's a few decent pics out there on the web but they're all of pretty much the same angles.
(http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/space/us/smithsonian/web_gallery2/images/photo_016.jpg)
(http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/space/us/smithsonian/web_gallery2/images/photo_017.jpg)
(http://www.users.bigpond.com/markltuc/images/horton_IX-9.jpg)
Gatso
-
damn! someone needs to pull their finger out and set about restoring that!
-
Amazing. I believe the majority of the Ho-229 was constructed out of wood. Can't believe its still in such good shape.
So theres gotta be a reason that there are not many flying wings around, even today. Are they less maneuverable than conventional aircraft? Produce a larger radar signature? Crash too much?
It would have been very interesting for the U.S. to have pursued the flying wing concept instead of conventional jets (such as the P-80 and F86).
-
All my pictures are in my books now I don't have a scanner yet (next wish list) and I would love to share the 8-9 rolls of film brady and i shot while we were there. And every plane there is supposed to be restored just takes a lot of money.
-
Some guy over at UBI is claiming the Horten had an ejection seat fitted. Mostly because the pilot would have been toasted bt the exhaust from the engines if he bailed normally.
Is this true?
-
Originally posted by AGJV44_Rot 1
...And every plane there is supposed to be restored just takes a lot of money.
Yeah, no kiddin. Lots of Time and Money if you want to do a proper job. Wood generally can be a blessing or a curse. Depends on what sort of state it's in and I guess there aren't exacly boxes of Horten flying wing spares just lying around so there could be all sorts of problems with getting it in one piece and safe for viewing. I hope they get round to it before it deteriorates too badly though. It'd be a great shame if it were never to go on public display again.
3 1/2 years so far on 'mine', maybe another 4 or so to go before wheels-up IF nothing unexpected comes up in the meantime.
http://www.project-vampire.org.uk/pictures/pr_vampire.jpg
I'm the bloke in the cockpit btw.
Gatso
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Amazing. I believe the majority of the Ho-229 was constructed out of wood. Can't believe its still in such good shape.
IIRC, the facility where the Ho-229 was being developed and tested was overrun quickly by Allied troops, where they found the third prototype being prepared for flight testing; that plane is the one at Garber. So it never had any service time to start its deterioration, and got a basic preservation job done on it immediately. By now, it would take some serious work to put it into flying condition, and being only the third prototype would probably not be very safe to fly.
(more historical information at http://www.hotel.wineasy.se/ipms/stuff_eng_detail_hoix.htm and http://www.geocities.com/nedu537/go229/)
So theres gotta be a reason that there are not many flying wings around, even today. Are they less maneuverable than conventional aircraft? Produce a larger radar signature? Crash too much?
The US flying-wing design program was for the B-35 (later, as a jet version, the B-49); high maneuverability wasn't a big issue for a bomber. In fact, Northrop had a contract for two proof-of-concept aircraft, 13 prototypes, and 200 series aircraft -- all before the first airframe ever flew (welcome to wartime procurement); limited manpower and production space availability delayed the first prototype until 1946.
(http://www.military.cz/usa/air/war/bomber/b35/yb35_11.jpg)
A pure flying-wing design will have less maneuverability than a design with vertical control surfaces; the XB-35 and YB-49 designs suffered from a lack of yaw stability due to the relatively primitive state of flight-control assistance available in the 1940s; Northrop was never able to satisfactorily address the yaw stability problem; it took too long for the plane to settle into stable flight -- direct bombing competitions between the XB-35 and the WWII era B-29 indicated that without an auto pilot the XB-35 could not fly a stable bombing run in less that 4 minutes while a B-29 flown manually consistently set up bombing runs under 45 seconds.
A flying-wing design, with the reduction in the number of reflecting surfaces, is inherently much stealthier than a conventional aircraft design; the XB-35 and YB-49 demonstrated this repeatedly, with ground radar failing to pick up the aircraft until they were virtually on top of the field -- and this with no attempt to reduce its radar cross-section.
Although test pilot Glenn Edwards was killed flying the second YB-49, what actually killed the flying-wing program were high procurement costs, reliability and maintenance problems, the inability of the airframe to carry the Air Force's stockpiled nuclear and large earth-penetrating bombs, and the fact that even if the time and effort had been put into rectifying these problems, the B-49 would have been outclassed by newer, higher-performance aircraft like the B-52 which was then under development.
It would have been very interesting for the U.S. to have pursued the flying wing concept instead of conventional jets (such as the P-80 and F86).
Unfortunately, they never solved the yaw control problem, and the requirements that the Air Force placed on the design (the Fat Man nuclear bombs wouldn't fit in the aircraft's bomb bays, requiring external fairings, for example) pretty much killed the program, and without a military development contract, Northrop couldn't afford to work on a civilian transport version -- which functionally eliminated flying wings from the skies of America.
-
Awesome information guys, Thanks.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Some guy over at UBI is claiming the Horten had an ejection seat fitted. Mostly because the pilot would have been toasted by the exhaust from the engines if he bailed normally.
Is this true?
Well is it? someone???
-
Yes, they did have an ejection seat. (At least, so I have read. Take it for what it is worth.)
However, I think it was more because of the speed the aircraft was to fly at, than the exaust heat.
~Luke
-
FWIW
http://pages.prodigy.net/jputtputt/northrup%20patent.htm (http://)
Jack Northrop developed his ideas for two decades in model form before....
N-1M (Northrop Model 1 Mockup)
Conventional wooden construction comprising a tailless true flying wing of 38-foot span; the first of its kind to appear in the U.S.; development began in July 1939, with first flight in July 1940.
Drooped wingtips were ground adjustable, and sweep could be varied by use of v-shape inserts where the outer wing panels joined the mid-wing/fuselage. Elevons operated in synchrony for pitch control and differentially for roll control. Rudder control for yaw was provided by wingtip mounted split clamshell flaps that opened to create drag on the desired side.
Powered by two 65-hp Lycoming O-145 four-cylinder air-cooled engines connected to propellers by long shafts; the airplane was underpowered. Six-cylinder Franklins replaced the first engines and provided 117 hp each. The Franklins tended to overheat, but the generally successful demonstration of the N-1M led to interest by the Army Air Corps in further development.
This aircraft is now on display following restoration at the NASM Garber facility.
Parallel development occurs frequently as possibilities allow. Newton and Leibnitz developed Calculus independantly, within just a few years of each other.
-
The Westland-Hill Pterodactyl tailless development aircraft first flew under power in 1924, last flight of the MkV version was somewhere after May 1934.
Most flew with wingtip rudders for yaw control although I belive there to be at least a trial period using some sort of trailing edge flaps. I think we beat at least Northrop to it, not sure about Horten or anybody else. ;)
There's one on display in the Science Museum in London. Unfortunately there's not many pics of it out there because it's not 'sexy'. This was the only one I was able to find on the web.
(http://www.worldmiltair.co.uk/photos/pterodactyl-raf-kensington-j8067.jpg)
Gatso
-
Does anyone know more about Igo Etrich (1879 - 1967) and his wing of 1908.
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/etrich_wels_1_350.jpg
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/etrich.html
-
http://shopping.discovery.com/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10000&storeId=10000&productId=10621&langId=-1&search=Y&searchKey=562098694
Or you can buy your own radio controlled stealth bomber ;)
(http://shopping.discovery.com/DiscoveryStore/images/products/large/r168245bl.jpg)
-
Hi Milo,
>Does anyone know more about Igo Etrich (1879 - 1967) and his wing of 1908.
>http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/etrich.html
The link you provided has a lot of good information already :-)
I'd add that Etrich's "Taube" (using the Zamonia wing but with a conventional tail) became a much-copied "standard" type just before WW1. Rumpler probably made more money of the Taube than Etrich did, but others copied it as well.
The Taube was very popular and is well-known even today, but I was quite suprised to see that Etrich started with tail-less designs :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I got a kick out of following this thread. I recently won a 1/72 scale model of the Horten flying wing in an eBay auction. I was going to kit-bash it into a UFO, but now I may just build it up like the German wonder-weapon it really was!
Cool links, guys. Thanks.
-
http://www.project1947.com/fig/horten1.htm (http://www.project1947.com/fig/horten1.htm)