Amazing photographs of the only surviving Horten 229 V3

a reply to: drwire

Oh really? Because I seem to remember both the US and UK flying jets before the end of the war. And Jack Northrop flying his wing designs before the US was pulled into the war. And the only practical thing that the Germans put into use was the jet.

The Me 262 was the first practical German fighter. It was introduced into service in 1944. The Gloster Meteor was introduced into service by the UK in 1944, and the US introduced the P-80 in early 1945.

what about the russian Chyeranovskii BICh-3 i think that deserves a mention in this thread as it is certainly tail less





also the bich-2 and bich-1 predate this and is before northrop acording to this source

The ME-262 immortalized in Heavy Metal:

www.youtube.com...

here is the horton parabola is this what crashed at roswell under a united states black projet?


i got this picture from the info from this source which has several horton aircraft in red?

a reply to: stuthealien

They're in red because there is no page for them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

that is a shame after i saw the picture of this i searched for some pictures of the others but could not find any

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Soloprotocol

They were unstable as hell in the early days.

For some reason I swear I remember hearing that flying wings weren't stable enough for any real flight until they had computerized controls to make constant small adjustments to the engine output. That would have required the transistor so nothing before that would have been viable.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

a reply to: Aazadan

Yes and no. The YB-35/49 was fairly stable in most phases of flight, but in others it was inherently unstable. There was a report by a test pilot that in certain stall modes it would want to go over backwards.

Flying wings have a tendency to hunt on the bomb run, which was one of the biggest issues the -35/49 had. They thought that if they put an autopilot with yaw dampener on it that would solve the problem of it hunting.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Aazadan

Yes and no. The YB-35/49 was fairly stable in most phases of flight, but in others it was inherently unstable. There was a report by a test pilot that in certain stall modes it would want to go over backwards.

Flying wings have a tendency to hunt on the bomb run, which was one of the biggest issues the -35/49 had. They thought that if they put an autopilot with yaw dampener on it that would solve the problem of it hunting.

----

I'm curious as to the number of control surface
Corrections per second is required to make
Something like the B2 bomber stable.

I have heard of numbers as low as 10 inputs
per second and as high as 180 corrections
Per second. The hydraulics needed to do that
High of a number of control surface inputs
Per second is mind blowing. How do the seals
On the pistons not just pop? The speed and
Pressure needed to move hydraulic fluid into
And out of control surface actuators THAT FAST
Is just stunning to my sensibilities!

Computational-wise I think the B2 bomber uses
Three 80 GigaFLOP AT&T DSP chips (if i am correct) to do the flight control of the B2 where
Each were like $25,000 at the time (1987).
(my cheapest graphics card has 10x the horsepower of all three chips and its only
$400 now)

Three chips were used for failure redundancy
Purposes --- if one went down the others would
Take over flight control.

How did the Horten wing stay stable without
Fast computer-controlled fly by wire flight control?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Didn't they more or less lose out because the B-47 still managed to attain (what was at the time) an incredible performance envelope, but using a much more conventional design?

I mean, both the B-47 and the B-49 were practically sci-fi designs compared to their competition, the B's -45, -46, and -48. It probably made a lot of sense then, for the USAF to select the more conventional design upon which to base the backbone of their nuclear attack force.

Or, to put it this way. The way I see it, the YB-49 was like the LM LRS-B contender, while the B-47 was like the Northrop bird. In this case, the competitors were swapped, and Boeing won with the conservatively capable design, while the USAF passed on Northrop's more ambitious one because they saw too many opportunities for complications during its further development.

a reply to: Barnalby

The excuses were that performance didn't meet their requirements. Not enough range loaded, not stable enough on the bomb run, etc.

What's interesting is that there's evidence that the aircraft that crashed returning from DC, and the aircraft destroyed in the taxi test may have been sabotaged, which hurt them a great deal.

The reality is that the aircraft was so different that no one knew what to do with it.

a reply to: stuthealien
Now doesnt that design look interesting if anyone follows UFO lore..

originally posted by: Blackfinger
a reply to: stuthealien
Now doesnt that design look interesting if anyone follows UFO lore..

do you mean this one ? i think the op's one and this one may be responsible for a few u.f.o sightings after the war and deserve a u.f.o thread as they have not got the attention they deserve and in my opinion would of been u.s black projects, that coupled with how long the ion engine has been in existence how far are they really in space.