Horton

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Anything is possible..

Thus the question to ask yourself, 'what is more likely'


So let me be sure I understand your statement of 'stability'

Correct me I am wrong.. But the Germans manage to finish building two Go229s prototypes just prior to wars end.. One of which crashed and killed the test pilot.. And the other flown less than a handful of times.. All while operating under the constant fear of some allied plane attacking them during these handful of test flight.. Translated.. Probably not the most detailed flight data collected nor time to get real feel for all the edge of the envelope type of testing one would expect a statement of 'stability' to stem from.. In short, one would be hard pressed to collect the 'basic' required data during such a few test flights under such conditions

So with that in mind.. I think most people would agree claiming the Go229 was well tested and thus confirmed 'stable' aircraft a preliminary statement at best and a baseless statement at worst.

It was a prototype, naturally it had flaws. That is in the nature of a prototype.
However, the only crash of a Ho229 occored when an engine flamed out during the landing approach.
And though I agree that the plane was not in the air enough to get data on every single aspect of flight, the fact that in a mock dogfight against the 262 the Ho229 got the upper hand gives some indications of the potential. As do the reports from the flight data that did survive.

It stands, the Go229 was remarkebly stable for a swept wing design from the 40ies.

Which is true of a lot of the late war equipment of the Germans.. That is to say you would be hard pressed to find a lot of through testing.. The kind of testing that would find 'short comings' in a design.. Where as on the other hand the allied, especially the USA, could fully test equipment without the worry of a German plane strafing them during the test.

The Me262 was in development from 38 onwards. The Horten was based on designs stretching back to the late 20ies. This is not He162 material.

By your logic alone the P51 was a faulty design, given it's short development history.

To make an analogy.. Take the P39 for example, one of the most tested planes of WWII.. Which is why a lot of people know so much about the negatives of the plane today.. Where as that level of testing was never done on a lot if not most of the late war German equipment.. Which means there was less negative things to say about them, which can lead to the false impression that there were no negatives aspects. The Go229 is a good example of this scenario.. I am sure that if the Hortons were able to continue their work like Jack Northrop did they would have came across some of the same problems Northrop did and thus have to make changes to their designs too.

See above. The Horten was not a new concept. The design history starts in the late 20ies. Stability issues in flying wings were not a new problem ppl suddenly had to wrap their head around.

Northrop was too ambitious in the way they build a huge bomber, which amplifies stability problems.

And funny enough, the russians considered the 39 to be one their best airplanes.

Disagree..

On that note, as I pointed out earlier, the B2 shares the same dimensions (wing width, angle) of Northrop 40s/50s wings.. Which were much bigger than the Go229.. Thus based on that alone I think one would be naive to think that just happened by chance.. Chances are (that more likely thing I mentioned before) is they started with the 40s/50s designs and incorporated what they had learned since the 40s/50s as oposed to spending time investigating a design (Go220) that was never tested to the level that Northrop tested their own designs.

Possebilities and chances. If you believe Northrop was mentally stuck in a box, well, then you believe Northrop was stuck in a box.





Note the extended wing area around the rear fuselage in the B2. That is not Northrop 40ies/50ies.

And note I never said otherwise.. The point I was making had more to do with the 'myths' of today.. As in ask the history channel types of historians what they think about the German V2 rocket.. And your likely to get the regurgitated history channel 'story'. That the V2 rocket was some sort of advanced concept.. As in the allied never even heard of rocket until a V2 landed in a field near London.

I think you confuse the concept of a rocket with the achievement of a ballistic missle reaching the edge of space in a constant military application after countless trial and error.
The V2 was an advanced concept.

Or let's say it this way, the first Benz car or even the Ford Model T were nice and dandy, nevertheless I'd say the Veyron is an "advanced" concept.

In regards to your History Channel reference.....yes, there are people out there that never heared of Goddard and think the A4 came into existence from nothing. The same applies to the first automobile, the first telephone, the Wright flyer and so on. All these inventions build upon already existing concepts. However, I do not think you need to have a crusade to convince ppl of that here.

When in fact the allied knew very well what rockets were and their limitations! The main limitation being able to hit your intended target.. Which is why the allies didn't bother with them. It was not until after WWII that the guidance systems were such that one could actually get close to hitting the intended target. Thus I suspect the only real surprise was that the Germans put so much time, money, and effort into building such a terror weapon as opposed to building something that could actual win the war.. Like the ABOMB for example.

Redstones, Jupiter Cs and ultimately the Saturn V.
I think the A4 had enough influence on american rocket development alright.

Last but not least it was the ballistic missile "combined" with the A-bomb that produced the most terrifying weapon ever concieved.