Horton

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Just that Northrop up to the B2 hardly ever build a pure flying wing, but always used some kind of vertical stabilizers directly or in form of their engine setup. One of the great two pioneers (Northrop, Horten) nevertheless.

Who knows, had the Horten's continued to work on their projects post war they too may have found the need to do the same.

The only thing we know for sure is that the B2 was not based on a Horten design.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

The thing about intentional stealth is debateable.

Well anything is debatable..

Thus the question should be is there anything that would be considered proof that they intended it to be stealth..

Time has a funny way of 'adding' to the myths..

Take the Me262 for example, ask your average History Channel watcher what was the first 'intentional' swept wing jet design and most will tell you it was the Me262.. When in fact the initial design of the Me262 had straight wings, they were swepted back NOT to take advantage of swepted wing aspects, they were swepted back to account for the lager than expect engine size/weight to correct the cg. Another example good example is the V2 rocket.. Ask your average history Channel watcher where some of the major V2 component designs came from.. Like the fuel pump, thrust steering veins, etc and they would say Von Braun came up with that during the war, when in fact those, and many other components used on the V2 were based on Robert Goddard's designs that he used in the 20s and 30s on his rockets.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

On the one hand, Germany did experiment with radar absorbing materials, U-Boats for example got a special coating for just that purpose. It's not far fetched to think that the Luftwaffe had their own interests in this regard and observed that development. The paint on the original Horton also has some Radar absorbing tendencies.

Was it radar absorbing material? I thought they used rubberized coatings on Subs to absorbe sonar, not radar.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

On the other hand, neither any documents from that period (those few left), nor direct testimony of the Horton brothers ever gave evidence over the Horten Bother's intention in that direction. This makes the whole debate purely speculative.

Agreed 100%

[tools4fools]

Time has a funny way of 'adding' to the myths..

It's as well widely known that those who win wars rewrite history...

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by tools4fools

It's as well widely known that those who win wars rewrite history...

Which was true of wars in the past where winner takes all..

As in the loosers country no longer exists post war.. other as than slaves to the winners..

But in the 20th century..

Where one nation simply beats down another..

And than helps rebuild the beaton down nation

That sort of re-wirte is much Much MUCH harder to do..

In that the beat down country still exits and thus has input on history.

Now with that notion (diversion topic) put aside..

Is there anything I said that you feel was re-writen by someone?

For example

Are you saying the B2 was based on a Horten design?

Or

Are you saying the Me262 was initally a swept wing design?

Or

Are you saying the fuel pumps in the V2 were not based on a Goddard design?

[tools4fools]

That sort of re-wirte is much Much MUCH harder to do..

It still done and they are still trying. Modern communication technologies make the situation even worse - it's more and more difficult to filter the information and misinformation.

Is there anything I said that you feel was re-writen by someone?

How would I know?

This images shows a swept outer wing even without jet engines:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...-me-262-v1.jpg

And even if it was purely to correct the CG - this claim is as unconfirmed as the opposite claim to me - then why did they later on introduce the sweep to the inner section as well (which was obviosuly not needed for CG)? And why were other projects of the swept wing variant too? There sure has been done research regarding the swept wing in the 30ies as well.

At the end the real truth lies probably somewhere inbetween.
And the bottom line stays the same - first fighter plane with swept wing.

The V2 rocket was sure incoporating existing designs, in fact most innovative designs did. After all it is a learning and improving process.

But bottom line is that it was the first ballistic missile.

And what is someone trying to say when putting up that it was Goddards parts/inventions?
'Hey he used Goddards design ideas, so it wasn't really that much of an achievement'?
Well that's already bending history in my opinion. There's much more subtle ways to do it than just blatant lies.

Funny enough the article in wiki states:

The official U.S. history comments that three features developed by Goddard appeared in the V-2: (1) pumps were used to inject fuel into the combustion chamber; (2) Gyroscopically controlled vanes in the nozzle stablized the rocket until external vanes in the air could do so; and (3) Excess alcohol was fed in, so that a blanket of gas protected the motor from the combustion heat. [89

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard

"the official US history'...that has me alarm bells going off.
I do not blindly believe in that "official US history". There is no reason why this US history would be the true and only version.

When it was decided that the B2 design would be a flying wing they sure looked at exisiting data of flying wings. They would have been stupid not to. However they would have look at their own designs, there's sure more data available from those.

[Sternjaeger II]

Have you guys been to the Space Centre in Leicester? I was quite surprised to see there was no mentioning of Werner Von Braun there.. I wasn't expecting to see the V2, but at least him among the fathers of missile development..

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Who knows, had the Horten's continued to work on their projects post war they too may have found the need to do the same.

Possible. The Go229 got it's stability mostly from it's "tail" design. Something Northrop only came up with much later in form of the B2.

The only thing we know for sure is that the B2 was not based on a Horten design.

Possible again. The B2 resembles the original Go229 much more then it resembles the 40ies, 50ies Northrop designs in regards to the extended wing area backwards around the fuselage.
Though completly agreed that the B2 is not based on the Horten, I think it is a bit naive to assume they did not get "any" inspiration from the Go229, which managed stability in a flying wing design to a degree not topped again until fly by wire.
Actually, Northrop dismissing that while developing the B2 would have been outright stupid. There was a reason their wings were pulled out of service in the 50ies.

That is not to diminish Northrop's designs and break throughs, far from it.

Thus the question should be is there anything that would be considered proof that they intended it to be stealth..

Time has a funny way of 'adding' to the myths..

Take the Me262 for example, ask your average History Channel watcher what was the first 'intentional' swept wing jet design and most will tell you it was the Me262.. When in fact the initial design of the Me262 had straight wings, they were swepted back NOT to take advantage of swepted wing aspects, they were swepted back to account for the lager than expect engine size/weight to correct the cg. Another example good example is the V2 rocket.. Ask your average history Channel watcher where some of the major V2 component designs came from.. Like the fuel pump, thrust steering veins, etc and they would say Von Braun came up with that during the war, when in fact those, and many other components used on the V2 were based on Robert Goddard's designs that he used in the 20s and 30s on his rockets.

If you argue this way, then nothing was ever invented which wasn't there before in some way or another, intentional or not. Bringing together already existing concepts and ideas to make them work and then into a practical and persistent application is what matters.

Myths, btw, start by a lot of ppl expiriencing awe in sight of something new. So whatever swept winged jets or ballistic missles were there before the Me262 and the V2, they obviously failed to have an impact. (Same btw, applies to the myth of the english inventing and using RADAR for the first time)

Was it radar absorbing material? I thought they used rubberized coatings on Subs to absorbe sonar, not radar.

Anti sonar for the hull, anti radar for persicopes and snorkles.

http://www.radarworld.org/radarwar.pdf

[Al Schlageter]

The Horten brothers disagreed about a vertical tail of some sort > one wanted it and the other did not.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Possible.

Anything is possible..

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

Originally Posted by Bewolf

The Go229 got it's stability mostly from it's "tail" design.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

The B2 resembles the original Go229 much more then it resembles the 40ies, 50ies Northrop designs in regards to the extended wing area backwards around the fuselage.

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.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

If you argue this way, then nothing was ever invented which wasn't there before in some way or another, intentional or not. Bringing together already existing concepts and ideas to make them work and then into a practical and persistent application is what matters.

Agreed!

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.

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.

[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.

[tools4fools]

Which is why the allies didn't bother with them

But it seemed to bother them enough to send almost 600 bombers over to Peenemuende in '43.
Plus Von Braun and his boys were taken to the USA immediately after the war.

To me it seems that contradicts your statement above...

Those reason given 'why the allies decided it was not worth to bother' are exactly those myths created to cover up for own shortcomings. Rewriting history. Bending reality.

It's a bit like about the Sherman tank. That a more heavy tank would have been a logistical problem to ship across the Atlantic and all that stuff. Yet after WW II all their main battle tanks were 45+ tons... Exactly the opposite.

If it really did not bother the allies they would not have send 600 bomber to Peenemuende and they would not have made a point in getting Von Braun and his crew.
+++++