It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Northrop and Horton-A link?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

Now moving onto the flying wing debate. Northrop was working on flying wings before the war and before anyhting was know about the Hortens work. It has happened quite a few times that entirely independant research has come up with the same solutions to a problem (the design of the Bell X-1 and Miles M.52 is a case in point). If Northrop did have contact with the Hortens it would have been by way of 'mutual interest' rather than gaining tech.

Also I find the talk (elsewhere on this board) that the B-2 is based upon the B-49 just a laughable as the talk that it owes anything to the Horten.

Just why would a state of the art stealth bomber be based upon an airframe designed in the 1940's? It is no more credible than saying the B-1 was based upon the company's 1940's B-45 Jet bomber. The B-2 and the YB-49 share a wingspan, a leading edge sweep angle and an overall aerodynamic philosophy, however these three elements are but the tip of the iceberg in the overall design of these two aircraft.


I did a lot of Research into the B-2! The Link between the B-2 and YB-49 is known. Northrop used a lot of the Data from the YB-49 research program to develop the Stability and Control laws for the B-2 Fly-by-Wire computer control system. Of couse there were adjustments made, but the X/YB-35\ YB-49 reseach provided the team with a starting point.

The point of my Question was, did ANY of the Horton Flying Wing's features influence the B-2's design? I heard somewhere that the Idea for the recessed exhausts ducts and the set back top mounted air intakes on the B-2 might have been inspired by the Horton 9. I wanted to see if there is any truth to this theory. If anyone knows the answer, I'd love to learn.




posted on May, 31 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Ghost, I agree that the aerodynamic behaviour of the YB-49 was relevant to the development of the B-2's control systems, they are both large flying wings so the link is there, which I alluded to in my post. However I have seen claims that the B-2 is based upon or developed from the YB-49 itself and that is what I am saying is laughable. There is a common theme to the two designs but no common hardware at all is what I'm saying.

As for Horten influence, I believe the entire form of the B-2 was evolved to suit the mission requirements from new without reference to any outside influences but that is my view based upon what I know of both types rather than hard fact. If anyone can prove otherwise I'm open to the idea but until then I'll stick with what I have.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Ghost, I agree that the aerodynamic behaviour of the YB-49 was relevant to the development of the B-2's control systems, they are both large flying wings so the link is there, which I alluded to in my post. However I have seen claims that the B-2 is based upon or developed from the YB-49 itself and that is what I am saying is laughable. There is a common theme to the two designs but no common hardware at all is what I'm saying.

As for Horten influence, I believe the entire form of the B-2 was evolved to suit the mission requirements from new without reference to any outside influences but that is my view based upon what I know of both types rather than hard fact. If anyone can prove otherwise I'm open to the idea but until then I'll stick with what I have.


Agreed!



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   
IIRC there were 2 configurations for the engine mounting in the Ho9; both presented a clear aspect from the front of the aircraft and were not 'buried' in any way.

I also came across this which might amuse some folks and annoy those who insist the Hortens had all the answers and were just (always "just") on the verge of fielding (yet another
) German war-winning design -


Rudolph Opitz, also a pilot, and one with experience in unconventional aircraft. "Any one of the old timers who flew Horten sailplanes ... knew that the Horten all-wing flying characeristics are horrible," he said.

"Anyone who came from the outside and flew the Horten all-wing aircraft found that the aircraft flew, but that was about all.
All these aircraft required considerable changes, but the Horten brothers would never listen."


I have also previously posted up the evaluation reports such as are available
www.twitt.org...

Quite why some people wish to keep the myth of nazi invincibility up (despite the heaviest and most comprehensive defeat anyone ever suffered ever) is beyond me.

The Horten aircraft were interesting concepts but that is all.
They were grossly underdeveloped and in need of several months (if not years) of flight development before the design was properly 'frozen', they needed several months (if not years) to train pilots in operations and tactics before they got anywhere near service deployment.

(and anyone who seriously thinks otherwise should take a look at Northrops years spent on his flying wings)

The days of cobbling together a lash-up plane and expecting it to perform (and it's crew to be able to make it perform) were long gone long before the Horten jet took to the air (oh, and crashed, killing it's pilot).



[edit on 31-5-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Well, its no coincidence that an operational flying wing only became a reality once FBW controls had been perfected, despite the decades of prototypes that preceded the B-2.

The purity of form that a flying wing presents has always attracted designers, and why stop at Horten and Northrop, you can include Armstrong Whitworth, Vickers, Avro, Junkers and many more besides but making one into a practical operational type was always just out of reach.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
To the response that the Horten 229 (ho9) had terrible flying characteristics: If you search through several books on the Horten 229 you will find that the actual pilots of the aircraft, like Ziller who flew the v-2, said that the flying characteristics of the aircraft were in fact, very good and the aircraft was quite manuverable. The only reason why other pilots would say that the aircraft had bad flying characteristics was because they deducted that since the aircraft didnt have any vertical control fins, it then didnt have good flying charactristics; while in reality the lack of vertical control fins only added a little movement of the aircraft left and right.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
well the guy quoted by sminkey seems to have been speaking from experience rather than theory



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Enjoy!



Beautiful bird.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
OK well if you call theory the actual pilot of the Horten v-2 plane, then i guess i am wrong about my deductions that the aircraft had good flying characteristics. Notice the person he quoted was a flyer of numerous aircraft and may not even had touched the Horten aircraft. Ziller, the test pilot of the v-2 had never commented on the poor charcteristics if there had been some. The only one that is recognized by all is the side-to-side movement of the aircraft due to the lack of Verical fins.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
No, you alluded to 'other pilots' who 'deduced' poor flying qualities, that to me looks as if you are saying they a guessing, or using theory. What I said was that the guy describes flying other Horten types with the same basic aerodynamic design so their is no reason at all to think the Ho 229 would be any different in this respect.

You also say 'only' the moving dfrom 'side to side' as if it is a minor thing when in fact it can be very very serious indeed and lead to catastrophic departure if it gets too out of control. Like I said before, why do you think flying wing aircraft never became operational until the age of FBW? Ok the Germans ran out of time but what about the succeeding decades until the FBW age, if flying wings were so great why did no air force deploy them? A lot were built as prototypes down the years, the AW 52 was a test vehicle for a proposed airliner that predates the BWB by many years and yet the layout was abandoned despite its great efficiency. The problem was control and now we have fly by wire that isn't a problem and lo the B-2 is an operational bomber.

Further evidence is that around the same time as the YB-49 was abandoned, despite great promise, the Avro 698 delta flying wing bomber, still in the design stage, grew an extended forward fuselage and a fairly large fin to overcome inherent stability problems in the flying wing layout and was evolved into the successful Vulcan.

The Ho 229, Ho IX or whatever were extremely efficient and attractive flying surfaces but they lacked effective lateral control and that was the downfall of the flying wing for many years.

[edit on 31-5-2005 by waynos]



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I agree with you that the first true operational All-wing aircraft was the B-2, i was just saying that the "numerous" supposed faults of the Horten 229 were not as numerous as once though.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Oh I don't think there were numerous faults, the low engine life, for example, was a handicap that was the fault of the war because of disrupted supply lines of the exotic metals needed and not related to the design of the aircraft and indeed affected all German jet efforts. As I said it is only a question of lateral control. But a serious question nonetheless.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by horten229v3
OK well if you call theory the actual pilot of the Horten v-2 plane, then i guess i am wrong about my deductions that the aircraft had good flying characteristics.


- I don't know why I bother posting up the links.

Did you bother to read any of them?
Try this -

The H IX V.1 was flown by Walter Horten, Scheidhauer and Ziller. Scheidhauer did most of the flying (30 hours) at Oranienberg, Horten and Ziller flew for about 10 hours.


- So that's a sum total of just 40 (or 50, depending on what that "and" refers to) hours flying the Ho 9 as a glider (and that in itself is hardly ideal a guage to the powered operational type, right?).

Then the most experienced pilot (Scheidhauer) was pressed about the plane as a glider -


Scheidhauer had flown the Me 163 as a glider and was obviously very impressed with it; he was confident enough to do rolls and loops on his first flight. We asked him how the H IX V.1 compared with the 163; he was reluctant to give an answer and said the two were not comparable because of the difference in size. He finally admitted that he preferred the 163 which was more maneuverable, and a delight to fly (he called it “spielzeug”).


- So inferior handling to the Me 163 was all he would say.

Then we get to the only power flights and all done by the pilot the type would kill (Ziller) after just 2hrs flying -


The H IX V.2 with jet engines was flown only by Ziller and completed about 2 hours flying before its crash. This occurred after an engine failure – the pilot undershot, tried to stretch the glide and stalled. One wing must have dropped, for the aircraft went in sideways and Ziller was killed.


So the sum total of flying time on which these war winning claims have been made are 40/50hrs as a glider and 2hrs under power ending with the death of the pilot and total loss of the aircraft.
Wow. sorry but I'm not impressed.

Like I said, an interesting diversion, nothing more......and probably (as with so much in Germany then) a waste of resources and effort which would have been better employed elsewhere.

Waynos is quite right, until computers and fly by wire came along flying wings were just too difficult.


Notice the person he quoted was a flyer of numerous aircraft and may not even had touched the Horten aircraft.


- Yeah that's all very well....... except notice who it is.
Rudolph Opitz. Me 163 test pilot, just like Scheidhauer, in fact a contemporary of Scheidhauer and who went on to later command of KG400.

So, not someone unknown to Scheidhauer nor someone given to comment if he has no clue as to what he was talking about.
He is very likely to have discussed handling characteristics etc......and to have been aware of the Horten's reputation (Walter in particular) to gloss over the problems and press on regardless.

A contemporary (Gerhard Hopf) remarked -


"It makes me even more mad to see how our great nation's war effort was so influenced by the likes of Walter Horten and Hermann Göring and their crazy ideas.... Walter with his smart-looking uniform and talk of miracle aircraft ... would make even the disbelieving believe."

www.warbirdforum.com...

Now this quote acknowledges Hopf's "minimal" contact with the Hortens and their wings yet the reputation must have spread, hmm?

Fantasy clearly was at that stage in the proceedings a hallamrk of Hitler's Germany.


Ziller, the test pilot of the v-2 had never commented on the poor charcteristics if there had been some.


- Oh come on.

Ziller only did 10hrs in the glider and then 2hrs in the powered plane which killed him before he could investigate or say very much about it.


The only one that is recognized by all is the side-to-side movement of the aircraft due to the lack of Verical fins.


- It barely did anything, 2hrs with power and the weight of fuel and engines etc etc; how on earth can you make any kind of serious statement as to what it vices were or were not?

[edit on 31-5-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Now thats very interesting;


One wing must have dropped, for the aircraft went in sideways and Ziller was killed.


I was completely unaware of this (sorry sminkey I didn't read the links either
)
but it wouls seem to completely validate the view I just posted about this 'side to side' thing



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Also of interest is that Alexander Lippisch wanted to stick a bloody great vertical tail fin on anything that was intended for high speeds......inc the Horten's work!

See the HoX (or Horten Ho XIIIb) Reimar Horten clearly had decided to move away from the all wing design for some reason, hmmm?


it is practically identical looking to Lippisch's P13/15



(sorry about the pics, it seems the resin model Luftwaffe 46 crowd are the only place to get a decent look at what might have been......and even then these designs are so sketchy at the best of times)



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Ok smileymonkey- didnt yuo say that Schiender had said that the me 163 and the horten 229 were not comparable? Then how could he have made a statement that would validate which one had better handling? He had just said they were not comparable! ultimately no one knows how well it handeled, it would have to be tested with the YB aircraft pilots in the US and extensively researched.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
What are you getting at? He said they weren't comparable, ie they were totally different from each other and he also said that the Me 163 had good handling characteristics. You can't get any plainer than that.

Having said all that the thought occurs that a fully restored Horten fitted with suitable modern engines and a FBW control system would make a great, if expensive, air show performer!



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by horten229v3
Ok smileymonkey- didnt yuo say that Schiender had said that the me 163 and the horten 229 were not comparable?


- I think Waynos has answered this fairly above.


Then how could he have made a statement that would validate which one had better handling? He had just said they were not comparable!


- Er, because the Me 163 was a light-weight delight as a glider and the Horten was a truck with a yaw instability they tried to damp down to a slow 'period'!


ultimately no one knows how well it handeled, it would have to be tested with the YB aircraft pilots in the US and extensively researched.


- Well we do have some contemporary comments to give us a clue -


Full of fuel and ready to fly, the Horten Ho 229 V2 weighed about nine tons and thus it resembled a medium-sized, multi-engine bomber such as the Heinkel He 111. The Horten brothers believed that a military pilot with experience flying heavy multi-engine aircraft was required to safely fly the jet wing and Scheidhauer lacked these skills so Walter brought in veteran Luftwaffe pilot Lt. Erwin Ziller.

www.nasm.si.edu...

- So, we have a heavy-weight, underpowered and grossly unreliable engined experimental plane with a yaw problem.

I'll happily agree it is an interesting plane, especially when one considers the conditions under which it was made.
But I'm not seeing anything that is a war-winner.
Sorry but I'm not.

I'm seeing another crazy experiment and scheme that looks very impressive on a very superficial level.

There is no way the Germans could have perfected this experimental craft, there is no way they could have trained pilots to fly it in a Germany where air superiority has been totally lost and there is no way Germany had the materials to manufacture these planes in any numbers sufficient to do anything but commit sheer bloody murder on those young men unfortunate enough to be caught up in any loopy schemes to fly them.......just as is the same for the Heinkel He 162.


[edit on 31-5-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Forschung
Here Shattered Skys, since you don't read very well, I posted the references again for you. Read them and weep--if you can read at all. I am not saying the Northrup engineers visited the Horton 9, all these other people are saying it and plenty more. But these are enough references for you and Rogue 1 to start with. Is there anything you don't understand about these references?

Well gee Forschung, could have swore I stated that the references you gave were perhaps unreadable or understandable by me, or any other member who has responded on the subject. So someone writes a book on something in a different language, perhaps the same language that the something was designed under, that means it's fully true and trustable?

Well yea, sit down.

Shattered OUT...



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by Forschung
Here Shattered Skys, since you don't read very well, I posted the references again for you. Read them and weep--if you can read at all. I am not saying the Northrup engineers visited the Horton 9, all these other people are saying it and plenty more. But these are enough references for you and Rogue 1 to start with. Is there anything you don't understand about these references?

Well gee Forschung, could have swore I stated that the references you gave were perhaps unreadable or understandable by me, or any other member who has responded on the subject. So someone writes a book on something in a different language, perhaps the same language that the something was designed under, that means it's fully true and trustable?

Well yea, sit down.

Shattered OUT...


Shattered Skys, Your last post passes for English? Well gee, if you discuss a German aircraft in detail, especially a limited series of three prototypes, it seems only reasonable that German sources would arise. I checked the web (although it is not my source of information) and came up with a link for you. Maybe you can argue with these guys. They do say Skunk Works, whatever that means:

www.netwrx1.com..../skunk-works/v05.n612



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join