Horton

[priller26]

Saw that show..pretty awesome. If I remember correctly, the even painted a swastika on the tail. I was quite surprised the PC police even allowed that.

[Viking]

I cannot help to think about the copyright problems that we had in Sturmovik when I see this documentary. Is OK to build a copy of the Horton today without permission and who own the rights to it?

[Sternjaeger II]

well the two Horten brothers both died in the 90s (one in Argentina and one in Germany), I doubt anybody can (or would want to) claim anything over their designs.

[ElAurens]

Stealth by accident, not by intent.

The Northrop flying wings were the same. Very hard to see on radar at the time, but no one gave much thought to that aspect of their design then.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Stealth by accident, not by intent.

The Northrop flying wings were the same. Very hard to see on radar at the time, but no one gave much thought to that aspect of their design then.

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.

The thing about intentional stealth is debateable.
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.

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.

[Sternjaeger II]

yeah, frankly I think that the choices for construction material for the Horten were based mainly on these aspects:

1) scarce raw materials.
2) lightweight construction
3) easier and cheaper to build

As you said there's no evidence to support the research in that anti-radar technology direction, if anything because if used properly the jets undoubtedly had a tactical advantage.

[tools4fools]

Maybe they choose wood because that's what they used for all of their gliders before?

If they really intended mixed charcoal dust in with the wood glue to absorb radar or for what else reason they did it, well, guess that can't be proven anymore either way.

[MB_Avro_UK]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

yeah, frankly I think that the choices for construction material for the Horten were based mainly on these aspects:

1) scarce raw materials.
2) lightweight construction
3) easier and cheaper to build

As you said there's no evidence to support the research in that anti-radar technology direction, if anything because if used properly the jets undoubtedly had a tactical advantage.

Agreed. There are those who say that the Dh Mosquito was made of wood to reduce it's radar profile. No. It was made of wood for other reasons.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

[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...