Horton

[Sternjaeger II]

maybe, again there's no certainty, you need to bear in mind that the primary need was structural flexibility and resistance to high G-loads, so the use of carbon layers was probably meant to address that more than radar stealth.

This is something that could be also verified in the RLM specs for the project, I doubt the Horten brothers would have bothered to come out with an idea on a field they probably didn't have a lot of info about(radar technology), especially because it was under strict secrecy at the time.

[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..

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by tools4fools

It still done and they are still trying.

Note I never said they don't try, sure they try.

But your missing the point, That 'old' saying of the winner write history applies more to ancient history. Where after the war there were no looses left to talk about the war (the winners killed them all) just the winners. Thus very easy for the winners to write history. With that said, the fact that Germany still exists means the story of WWII 'history' is NOT a one sided story.

Originally Posted by tools4fools

Modern communication technologies make the situation even worse - it's more and more difficult to filter the information and misinformation.

Agreed.. It is harder but not impossible.

For example, the examples I already provided where the Me262 was not the first swept wing design and the V2 rocket was not something the rest of the world never heard of until the Germans build one. Yet that is the history they 'try' to 'sell' today

Originally Posted by tools4fools

How would I know?

Do some research beyond the history channel, to filter out some of that 'noise' you noted above.

Originally Posted by tools4fools

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

Well I would expect them to have to fudge the outer wings to account for the lack of engines, from that picture it appears that bent part start at the location of where the engines would be mounted. But

Originally Posted by tools4fools

And even if it was purely to correct the CG - this claim is as unconfirmed as the opposite claim to me -

It is confirmed

Originally Posted by tools4fools

then why did they later on introduce the sweep to the inner section as well (which was obviosuly not needed for CG)?

From what I recall, there were several changes in the engines size and weight, so that may be one reason. Another could be a baby step process, where they made it work with what they had, than, to simplify production accounted for the changes in a total wing re-design.

Originally Posted by tools4fools

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.

I never said the Germans where aware of the benefits of a swept wing.. My point was the Me262 was not the first intentional from the start swept wing jet design. The 18 deg sweep was too too slight to achieve any significant advantage in increasing the critical Mach number. Later designs.. Well I should say later concepts took this into account and used a much larger sweep than 18 deg. Sadly most of those concepts never made it from the napkin they were scribbled on to blue prints let alone wind tunnel models let alone prototypes let alone production. On that note I think the Ta183 was one of the few, if only, that made it to a wood wind tunnel model.

Originally Posted by tools4fools

At the end the real truth lies probably somewhere inbetween.

No the truth remains that the Me262 was NOT initially a swept wing design, and that the wings were swept to correct the cg. That and the truth that even the German swept wing analysis proved the 18 deg sweep of the Me262 was too small to take significant advantage in increasing the critical Mach number. Which is why some later concept re-designs of the Me262 had a much larger sweep angle. On that note the F86 went through the same process, initially it was a straight wing design, but, the designed was change to sweep the wings, much more than 18 deg, NOT to correct a cg problem, but to take significant advantage in increasing the critical Mach number.

Originally Posted by tools4fools

And the bottom line stays the same - first fighter plane with swept wing.

Nope.. On that note there were some planes in WWI and WWII that had swept wings, some of which like the Me262 were done to correct the cg.

But the point your missing here is the purpose of the sweep.. Many history channel viewers belive the Me262 swept wing design was done to take significant advantage in increasing the critical Mach number. Which as I pointed out is not the case, first the sweep was too small, and second the wings were swept to correct the cg

Originally Posted by tools4fools

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

Agreed 100%

But ask your normal history channel viewer and they are under the impression that no one else in the world knew what a rocket was until a V2 landed in a filed and killed some cattle. The fact is the V2 was not a war winning design, it was a terror weapon. Which is why the US and others didn't bother building rockets during WWII. It was not because they couldn't, it was because they could not hit their intended target with any real certainty. The US was well aware of Robert Goddard work with rockets, but they also knew the limitations of said rockets, as in guiding them to the intended target. Which is whey the US employed Goddard to develop rockets for planes to assist in takeoff and bazookas.. Stuff that was useful and could assist in winning the war and not just pissing of some British farmer because a V2 landed in his filed and killed some of his sheep.

Originally Posted by tools4fools

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

Nope.. Goddard build rockets too.. The biggest difference between his and the V2 was his had cameras and instruments installed where the Germans put explosives

Originally Posted by tools4fools

And what is someone trying to say when putting up that it was Goddard parts/inventions? 'Hey he used Goddard design ideas, so it wasn't really that much of an achievement'? Well that's already bending history in my opinion.

That is your opinion and you welcome too it

But I think most would agree that it is much easier to refine a design than produce it from scratch

Originally Posted by tools4fools

There's much more subtle ways to do it than just blatant lies.

Lies? I noticed that you failed to quote anything I said that was a lie..

Is it safe to assu..

Oh wait I get it

You got nothing to contradict anything I said, so your only hope is to try and sway those who may be reading this to your side of the story by implying I lied

Originally Posted by tools4fools

Funny enough the article in wiki states:

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.

If you think that is funny.. Than you will love the wiki so called official US history on Von Braun!

Originally Posted by tools4fools

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.

Bingo!

Northrop had all the flying wing info he needed.. Mater of fact if I recall correctly, the B2 has the same wing span and or dimensions of the wings (B35 B49) he build in the late 40s early 50s

[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.