Horton

[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.

[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/

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

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, but which still suggests the Horten being a surprisingly stable wing

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 but despite that never managed to be developed into a state of being airworthy and ultimately got pulled from service

Fixed that for you.
Personally I am going with the first

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.

Compared to the B49, which was a proven failure, despite even using vertical stabilizers? Yes.


And as you provided such nice pics in your post, let me provide some of my own.



wing2 von Gammelpreusse
wing1 von Gammelpreusse

I am sure you will have an opinion on that one, too.


For the rest, tools4fools already settled that.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Fixed that for you.

Disagree.. The B49, as with all flying wings had stability issues.. It was not until the advent of fly-by-wire computer control pilot inputs was this problem solved, which is what made the B2 possible.. Something the Germans would have surly realized for themselves had they had more time to fully test the Go229. Or had the US bothered to fully test the Go229 post war

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Compared to the B49, which was a proven failure, despite even using vertical stabilizers? Yes.

Well that depends on your definition of failure.. Granted EDWARDS air force base got it's name due to the stability issues mentioned above

But as for the basic concept of the reduced drag a flying wing provides was not a failure

Add to that the basic shape of a flying wing is more stealth than say a B52 and it was not a failure.

Also note there were a lot of politics involved at the time that killed off the flying wings of the 50s, so even if they would have or could have addressed the stability issues in the 50s there is a good chance it woudl have been cancled due to politics

Originally Posted by Bewolf

And as you provided such nice pics in your post, let me provide some of my own.

You do realize that one can stretch and pull drawings to make them look like they agree when in fact they don't.. In your case here the leading edges.

And in doing so you missed the point

That the wing span of by the B49 and B2 are the same.. Which is very different from the wing span of the Go229

Originally Posted by Bewolf

I am sure you will have an opinion on that one, too.

See above

Originally Posted by Bewolf

For the rest, tools4fools already settled that.

I would expect nothing less from someone who considers the Germans supermen assisted by aliens..

But here in the real world

The Me262 experts (STORMBIRDS) that build reproductions of the Me262 don't say what the people who belive the Germans were supermen assisted by aliens say they are saying