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.

[tools4fools]

But your missing the point

I think you are missing the point. If you think just because those who lost the war still exist today as nations the history will be 'accurate' and 'neutral' because of that then I think you are wrong. Terribly wrong.
Look at the war against Saddam/Irag and the 'weapons of mass destruction' and the controversy out of that...

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

Well, that's where we disagree then.
Or you tell me which was the first swept wing jet fighter in service and the first ballistic missile used?

It is confirmed

By who? Are those 'confirmed authorities' on the subject?

I would expect them to have to fudge the outer wings to acc

You would expect them? Sorry, but I don't count that as a source...
There's a lot of people out there who 'expect' stuff...

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

All your answers to this are assumptions. So it could well be possible that they tested the thing in the wind tunnel and realized that the outer swept wing sections did something good for high speed. And then decided to continue the swepot wing in the inner wing parts.
That would be an assumption as valid as yours - but nothing more than that (and yours). Assumptions.

At the end the real truth lies probably somewhere inbetween.

I stand by this. It is well possible that the first part of wing sweep was done purely because of CG - even if it was done way before the first jet engine was actually put on that wing. Makes me wonder a bit about the claim that it was done because the jet engines were heavier than they thought. So they knew that in 1940, when they still planned with a BMW jet?
Nobody has ever answered the question why it was done to the inner wing as well later on - obviously not needed for CG.
So it is well possible that in the progress of designing the plane they did learn something about the effects of wing sweep as well. After all there was research done before the war even.
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e6...111/SW2623.jpg
Other swept wing design than the Ta 183:
http://www.scientistsandfriends.com/...ns/P1101-1.jpg

The biggest difference between his and the V2 was his had cameras and instruments installed where the Germans put explosives

Nope. The biggest difference is that the V2 actually worked and flew way higher and further. Those were real rockets that worked.
The first ballistic missiles. 300km range and 90km altitude.
Goddards rockets were experimental.

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

And Goddard used a... De Laval nozzle...invented by De Laval in 1888. Guess what, he did the same than everybody else - build on existing stuff and knowledge, added new own stuff, improved other stuff.

Goddard gets credit for the launch of the first liquid fuel rocket, 1926. Von Braun and team for the first ballistic missile.

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

I never said you were lying - I said history is rewritten by those who win the wars. This is not really done so much by blatant lies but by more subtle ways.

Downplaying advances other countries had made is one of them - covering up for own 'shortcomings' at the same time.
Creating myths is part of that.
+++++

[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.
+++++

[ElAurens]

Other than the fact that they are both flying wing type aircraft, comparing the Horten interceptor to the Northrop bomber and claiming that the Horton was somehow better/more stable/etc... makes no sense.

In the fighter/interceptor role, the kind of long frequency yaw translation instability that plagued all flying wings before the advent of computer controls, would never be an issue. In fact I doubt it would have even been detectable through a reflector gun sight at the ranges and with the short time "on target" that a first generation jet interceptor would have on a piston engine bomber.

The simple fact is that the Germans never tried to level bomb with a Go229 from 30000ft, as that is not what it was made for.

Saying the German design is somehow better/more advanced/whatever than the Northop bombers is just the same kind of flag waving, fanboy wishful thinking that proponents of American/Allied aircraft have been constantly accused of over the ten plus years of this simulation.

Was the Go229 a "superplane"? A world beater? I guess we will never know, as it never met a P-80 in combat.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Other than the fact that they are both flying wing type aircraft, comparing the Horten interceptor to the Northrop bomber and claiming that the Horton was somehow better/more stable/etc... makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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

As such, agreed.

In the fighter/interceptor role, the kind of long frequency yaw translation instability that plagued all flying wings before the advent of computer controls, would never be an issue. In fact I doubt it would have even been detectable through a reflector gun sight at the ranges and with the short time "on target" that a first generation jet interceptor would have on a piston engine bomber.

Small flying wings has the very same problems, just not as pronounced as weith a big wing. Nevertheless it was an issue, especially in the kind of high maneuver dogfighting that still occured at times.

The simple fact is that the Germans never tried to level bomb with a Go229 from 30000ft, as that is not what it was made for.

Saying the German design is somehow better/more advanced/whatever than the Northop bombers is just the same kind of flag waving, fanboy wishful thinking that proponents of American/Allied aircraft have been constantly accused of over the ten plus years of this simulation.

Was the Go229 a "superplane"? A world beater? I guess we will never know, as it never met a P-80 in combat.

The "better" stuff is something you read into here. Nobody claimed that in this debate. As ACE, do not make the mistake to assume ppl debating here take this youtube video at face value. And better then what? There was no other flying wing jet fighter around at that time to compare it to.
The p80 was a great aircraft, but as conventional as an aircraft could get at that time, bar the jet engine and the wing tip fuel tanks later on.

Again, Northrop was a visionary. The Hortens were visionaries. With one big difference in regard to making their military aircraft.
One build a bomber, one a fighter bomber. One, at least from the few documents and sources we have, worked. The other one, however, and that is a documented fact, not.

Nobody ever claimed that the Go229 was a superplane.
It was a highly ambitious and for the time highly advanced aircraft with the pontential to produce a flying wing jet fighter in the 40ies, including some of the features that made flying wings a real possebility in the first place, the tail section in this already mentioned, the wing mounted air brakes to use as Rudder another one.
The Northrop wings of that time period did not have that, instead they tried to solve the problem with horizontal stabilisation.
The modern B2 went the Horten way in this regard, not the original Northrop designs.

Who knows what would have happend if Northrop tried to build a fighter in the 40ies/50ies instead, but they built a bomber, so there is as much speculation in here as to over what the final Go229 production fighter would have been like.

[Sternjaeger II]

The 229 was the sign of how the concept of dogfight was changing: you didn't need something powerful AND manoeuvrable anymore, you needed to take X amount of firepower at Y altitude and at Z speed, make a couple of passes and bugger off.

This imprint will be the signature style of all the interceptors of the 50s and 60s, reaching its apex with the F-104 Starfighter.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

The 229 was the sign of how the concept of dogfight was changing: you didn't need something powerful AND manoeuvrable anymore, you needed to take X amount of firepower at Y altitude and at Z speed, make a couple of passes and bugger off.

This imprint will be the signature style of all the interceptors of the 50s and 60s, reaching its apex with the F-104 Starfighter.

That was already the case from 1941 onwards, if not earlier.

[Kodoss]

The XB-35/YB49 had it's outer rudder flaps as air brakes, an evelon (combined aileron/elevator) and trim tabs. Primary controlles were all hydraulic powered to reduce the forces for the pilot.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

That was already the case from 1941 onwards, if not earlier.

mmmh I'm not sure about that. Granted that it was the theory, but the manoeuvrability aspect was still very important, maybe the 229 wasn't the first, as things like the Natter and Komet came before, but it definitely shows a different trend from the concept of the conventional propeller driven air superiority aircraft. The advantage of superior speed of jets was the edge they needed really.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

It was a prototype, naturally it had flaws. That is in the nature of a prototype.

I am glad you agree with me..

But you didn't answer my question..

What do you think is more likely?

1) Northrop used design aspects of the Go229.. A plane that you admit 
is a prototype, A plane that you admit was not thoroughly tested, A plane 
that you admit very little test data was collected on, and of that even less 
survived the war

Or

2) Northrop used design aspects from their own B-49.. A plane that was well 
beyond the prototype phase, A plane that was thoroughly tested, A plane 
that a lot of test data was collected on

Personally I am going with the later

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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

So let me see if I understand you statement of 'stability'

The Go229.. A plane that is a prototype, A plane that was not thoroughly tested, A plane that very little test data was collected on, and of that even less survived the war..

And you say it 'stands' as a 'stable' plane?

I have to ask what is that statment based on?

Please explain, because I don't see anything said here by anyone that would qualify as proof of stability.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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

I think you need to re-read what I said.. And note that I said NOTHING about design development time.. And to be clear, I 'think' you are referring to time it took between the time NA was given the green light to start work on the P51 design to the roll out of the first prototype.

If so, what you are referring to is the design development time.. Which was a very short time!

But now re-read what I wrote about the Go229 and note I was referring to the 'testing' time, not the 'design' time. Testing time is something the P51 got plenty of AFTER the first prototype was build!

With that cleared up

In short, durring WWII anyone could design a plane and build a prototype..

But until the flight testing was done, they really didn't know for sure if what they build would be worth a dam, let alone fly.

Today, they can simulate a lot if not most things prior to a prototype being build, such that when the actual flight testing occurs they got a pretty good idea of what to expect..

Which was NOT the case in WWII and is the core of my point in my previous post to you..

That being a lot of the late war Germans stuff did NOT have the luxury of extensive testing..

They were desperate and had to forgo a lot of the testing that they themselves would have like to have done, but were unable to do.

Therefore they did not have time to find the errors one could have found had they had more time to test it.. As was the case of Nortrops flying wings post war.. Which is why this 'myth' of the Go299 of being stable can go un-challanted, in that no one, not even post war, bothered to test it throghtly to see if that was in fact the case.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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.

By your logic alone then no plane in WWII required any testing..

Yet we know in fact they did!

Which in turn means your logic has 'issues'

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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

It has nothing to do with their head being stuck in a box and everything to do with being smart about what your doing. As noted above

1) Northrop used design aspects of the Go229.. A plane that you admit 
is a prototype, A plane that you admit was not thoroughly tested, A plane 
that you admit very little test data was collected on, and of that even less 
survived the war

Or

2) Northrop used designs aspects from their own B-49.. A plane that was well 
beyond the prototype phase, A plane that was thoroughly tested, A plane 
that a lot of test data was collected on

Personally I am going with the later

Now if that has not sunk in yet.. I think I know a way to help it sink in.. And all you have to do is answer one question

Question: What does the Go229 have that the Northrop flying wings of the 40s and 50s didn't have?

Once you realize the answer is nothing

Than and only than will it be clear as to why Northrop would be smart to start the B2 project based on their thoroughly tested production level designs of the 40s and 50s over a Go229 prototype that was not thoroughly tested.. In that had it been thoroughly tested 'chances' are that Horton would have had to do some of the things Northrop did based on what Northrop discovered during testing

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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

That is not Go229 either

Which is hard to see from the drawings you provided.. So I decided to make my own where I combined a top view of a B2, B49 and a Go229 (see attached). Note these are not blue prints, thus the scale may be off in the drawings a bit. But note the wing span of the B49 vs the B2.. And note they are both 172ft.. At which point one has to ask again

What do you think is more likely?

1) The wingspan of the B2 being 172 ft and the wingspan of the Go229 being 
55 ft indicates Northrop based the B2 design on the Go229

Or

2) The wingspan of the B2 being 172 ft and the wingspan of the YB49 
being 172 ft indicates Northrop based the B2 design on the B49

Personally I am going with the later

Originally Posted by Bewolf

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

Hardly..

I think it is safe to say I know the difference.. As one who works at White Sands Missile Range and works in the same building that Von Braun worked in after the war.. A building that still has the rail-road tracks in it where they use to assemble the V2 for test, and is just down the street from a display of what some call 'the most complete V2 in the world'.. On that note WSMR is only a short drive from Roswell where they have a Goddards museum and one of Goddards original launch pads and is not the far from where Goddards did his rocket testings in the 20s and 30s.. Which is also why I feel safe in saying the V2 was not as advanced as the history channel would have you belive. Unless you consider 'advanced' to mean something build using about 20 of Goddards patents from the 20s and 30s in the construction of the V2.

Originally Posted by Bewolf

I think the A4 had enough influence on american rocket development alright.

Well not if we use the same measuring stick that you 'tried' to use to equate the B2 to the Go229, that being the tails look similar.. In that the V2 looks nothing like the Saturn V.

On that note, I always wondered what the space race would have been like had Goddard not died in 1945 to throat cancer. Imagine Von working with Goddard.. The man Von Braun freely admitted after the war, much of the V-2 design was directly borrowed from the writings of the American rocket scientist Robert Goddard [1].. The man Von Braun said "His rockets ... may have been rather crude by present-day standards, but they blazed the trail and incorporated many features used in our most modern rockets and space vehicles[2].. I don't know what they could have done working together.. But I think it is safe to say the Russians would not have beat us into space and that we would have got to the moon even sooner.

[1] http://www.nmspacemuseum.org/halloff...tail.php?id=29
[2] http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/vonbrau...childhood.html
[3] http://blog.modernmechanix.com/the-m...door-to-space/