PDA

View Full Version : Ho 229



bazzaah2
08-17-2004, 10:45 AM
I was wondering something about this plane.

I read somewhere that it was reported, after one of its test flights, to have great flying qualities. Given that the US post-war experiments (to my knowledge) with flying wings weren't that succesful, just wondering if someone could enlighten me as to how/why the Ho 229 was supposed to be so great?

Also read that it took modern computing power to make the shape flyable.

Something's not adding up here and wondered if any of you could enlighten me.

Thanks

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

Normally Spiny Norman was wont to be about
twelve feet from snout to tail, but when Dinsdale was depressed Norman could be
anything up to eight hundred yards long.

bazzaah2
08-17-2004, 10:45 AM
I was wondering something about this plane.

I read somewhere that it was reported, after one of its test flights, to have great flying qualities. Given that the US post-war experiments (to my knowledge) with flying wings weren't that succesful, just wondering if someone could enlighten me as to how/why the Ho 229 was supposed to be so great?

Also read that it took modern computing power to make the shape flyable.

Something's not adding up here and wondered if any of you could enlighten me.

Thanks

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

Normally Spiny Norman was wont to be about
twelve feet from snout to tail, but when Dinsdale was depressed Norman could be
anything up to eight hundred yards long.

PBNA-Boosher
08-17-2004, 10:48 AM
It wasnt' exactly the Ho-229 itself, it was the design. The Ho-229 was almost invisible to radar, and the concept was that if they could build it bigger, by Hitler's birthday, April 21st, this larger design of a Ho-229 bomber could have taken off, hit New York City, and returned. If by that point the Germans had the atomic bomb, they could have dropped it on NYC. Imagine the devastation.

The real news behind the Ho-229 is the technology it made available, not really the performance of the plane.

Boosher
_____________________________
"So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you..."
-Gandalf

bazzaah2
08-17-2004, 10:52 AM
I'm aware of the technical advances it represented; my question was more to do with the fact that the Ho 229 was reported to have flown well.

Doesn't square off with pronouncements that the stealth bomber is mainly stable and flyable because of modern computing power.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

Normally Spiny Norman was wont to be about
twelve feet from snout to tail, but when Dinsdale was depressed Norman could be
anything up to eight hundred yards long.

BlakJakOfSpades
08-17-2004, 12:11 PM
i seem to recall that there were 2 prototypes and one of them crashed so it may have been that it didn't lack in maneuverablility and handled very well, but maybe too well, too easy to turn too fast and stall or something im no expert thats just my guess

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v344/BlakJakofSpades/sig.jpg
You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.
Jeannette Rankin (1880 - 1973)

Fafnir_6
08-17-2004, 12:28 PM
The Go229V-2 crashed because an engine flamed out on landing approach (at low speed). Otherwise the Go229 measured up quite well. There were a few concerns raised by the Gotha engineers about the lateral drift they observed sometimes.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

Xiolablu3
08-17-2004, 06:51 PM
Are u sure your not getting the B2 mixed up with the F117 Stealth Fighter? That needs many computers to make the shape flyable. The flying wing shape the B2 uses flies fine without computers (Im not saying the B2 DOESNT use them tho, Im not sure about this). Maybe it uses computers to make it more stable tho.

Airlines are thinking of using the flying wing shape for future airliners because it creates SO MUCH lift that they can carry more people.

HunterZer0
08-17-2004, 06:59 PM
Pretty much all modern military aircraft have some sort of fly-by-wire flight control computer. The F-117 is aerodynamically unstable though, so much so it's know as the "Wobblin' Goblin".

The B-2 is aerodynamically unstable as well, and has four flight control computers.

Both aircraft are designed primarily to be invisible to radar, and aerodynamics come second.

- HZ

lbhskier37
08-17-2004, 07:18 PM
Where did this talk about the GO229 being almost invisible to radar come from? Does someone have a good source for this? I'm really hesitant to believe this because our first "stealth" plane the F-117 was prismatic because we didn't have powerful enough computers to calculate the complex shapes required to get stealth out of a curved surface. If we couldn't do it until the B-2, how did the Germans just get lucky and fall upon it in '44, and if theirs was stealth why did it take 40 years for us to get stealth working?

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

ASH at S-MART
08-17-2004, 07:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bazzaah2:
I was wondering something about this plane.

I read somewhere that it was reported, after one of its test flights, to have great flying qualities. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Great is a relitive term.. Great what? Great Bomber? Great Fighter?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bazzaah2:
Given that the US post-war experiments (to my knowledge) with flying wings weren't that succesful, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You need more knowledge! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Northrop was very succesful after and BEFORE the war with flying wings.

1940
N9MB Still flys today
http://lsss.homestead.com/files/N9MBL.jpg

B35
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/fta/b35-3.jpg

YB-49
http://www.aircrash.org/burnelli/images/yb49_a.jpg

B2
http://www.abbotsfordairshow.com/2002/b2.jpg

If that isnt a track record for of succes then I dont know what is! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Granted in the 50 with the freq acedent that killed Glen Edwards it set things back a few years.. But what started out as a concept for long range bomber.. ie flying wing equals less drag with the added benifit of low radar sig ended up with one heck of a bomber in the B2!

The funny part is when I see someone say the B2 was based off the Ho229 as if none of the flying wings Northrop build before, during and after the war had anything to do with it.. Just toss out all that work and go dig up a 50 year old design.. RIGHT! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bazzaah2:
just wondering if someone could enlighten me as to how/why the Ho 229 was supposed to be so great?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To answer that you would have to get into the head of the people that said it was great.. And ask them great what? There are alot of things a plane can be great at and still not be overall great!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bazzaah2:
Also read that it took modern computing power to make the shape flyable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmmm I doubt it.. The NM9 flys fine.. They do have a strange stall charterstic.. So said the pilot at chino.. But they were flying them in the 50s with 50s tech.. The B2 makes use of alot of computers.. But in that sense most planes do these days.. Maybe a computer that would limit the pilot from doing what Glen Edewards did on that final day.. But otherwise not necessary to fly them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bazzaah2:
Something's not adding up here and wondered if any of you could enlighten me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My guess is that when they said great them were talking in general to other bombers or relitive to something they flew alot.. Great is such a non-specific term.. For example.. If I said GREAT SEX! To one perons that means one thing.. To a porno start it would mean another thing.. And to me.. Heck even the worst SEX I ever had was not BAD! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If you want to learn more about Northrops FIRST go here

http://northrop.host.sk/

And in Summary.. note the resemblances

1940
http://www.air-and-space.com/20031025%20Edwards/06%2009%20N9M-B%20N9MB%20left%20front%20in%20flight%20l.jpg

TODAY
http://www.air-and-space.com/20031025%20Edwards/06%2007%20B-2A%2082-1068%20Spirit%20of%20New%20York%20412TW%20right%20 front%20in%20flight%20m.jpg

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

[This message was edited by ASH_SMART on Tue August 17 2004 at 06:34 PM.]

WTE_Dukayn
08-17-2004, 07:22 PM
I imagine radar in the 40s wasn't as advanced as these days http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif That might explain it a bit.

----------------------
WTE 2TG No. 68 Sentai
BANZAI!

fRitz0r
08-17-2004, 07:53 PM
the B-49 had several sucsessfull flights, there was even a passenger plane on the drawings, the big win was offcourse fuel efficiency, due to low drag.

but out of the blue, the program got scratched, a bit sad i think, cause a passenger plane like that might be just what we need in this world

HellToupee
08-17-2004, 08:52 PM
um wasnt nm9b first flown 1942

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg

HangerQueen
08-17-2004, 09:02 PM
Wasn't the "invisible to radar" quality of the Ho-229 an unexpected but happy side-effect?

It's a shame the flying wing concept never made it off the ground in civil aviation - they look so much nicer than what we have now.

Speed is a device of Shaitan - Fremen Proverb

WTE_Galway
08-17-2004, 09:38 PM
modern fly-by-wire designs are deliberately aerodynamically unstable it gives them a manouverabiltity edge

WUAF_Badsight
08-17-2004, 10:29 PM
thats because stable planes are not the most manouverable

the nose up tendancy is not stable . . . . but makes for a more responsive AC , which is exactly what you dont need in a ground pounder but is exacly what you do need in a DFer

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Friendly_flyer
08-17-2004, 11:16 PM
I think the "great" aspect of the Goha was that it flied without wanting to fall from the sky all the time, on the first flight tests. That was not always the case back in the 40'ies, when prototypes were put in the air without the benefit of supercomputer simulations. It's by no means a small achievement in it self.

But GREAT? Only operational experience would be able to tell if it was. There's (luckily) no way we'll know for sure.

Fly friendly!

Petter Bøckman
Norway

ArgonV
08-17-2004, 11:25 PM
The Ho 229 prototypes actually flew more than just once before the flight crash. There were several other powered flight tests before the engine flamed out on landing and caused the crash. There was a final flight test which was actually going to take place but the allies over-ran the airbase before it could take off.

The Horten brothers had several glider prototypes that flew in the 1920's and 1930's with GREAT success.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Go Fly A Kite!"
-Jason R.
Head FS-WWI Project Leader
http://www.ww1sims.com/uploads/logo.jpg
FS-WWI Plane Pack Site (http://argonv.tripod.com/FSWWI_Page/readme.htm)

Ob.Emann
08-18-2004, 12:12 AM
When the Ho-229 was being test-flown in Oranienburg, Germany in December-February 1945, test pilot Erwin Ziller was informed via radio that the plane had dissapeared off the airfield's radar.

What the Germans didn't realize, is that they had just accidently developed a primitive RAM coating, due to the Gotha's mixed construction of conventional steel tubing (center section) and wood (wings).

"The construction of the Gotha Go 229 was interesting as it was designed from the out set to save on resources by using steel tubing and scrap wood. The center section was built out of steel tubes and covered with a composite skin (except in the vicinity of the engine exhausts where metal was used). The "skin" comprised of two 1.5mm ply wood sheets which sandwiched a 12mm layer of sawdust, charcoal and glue, this was designed to make the aircraft invisible to radar as it had been found that the "skin" would absorb the radar waves and give a very small reflection. The wings were made wholly out of wood and contained the fuel in cells, they were also covered in the same composite skin."

The shade of lateral instability or "Dutch roll" it exhibited during flight was solved by the inclusion of air brakes, making it more stable as a weapons platform.

Der Oberst von schlechten Piloten

Spinnetti
08-18-2004, 05:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Where did this talk about the GO229 being almost invisible to radar come from? Does someone have a good source for this? I'm really hesitant to believe this because our first "stealth" plane the F-117 was prismatic because we didn't have powerful enough computers to calculate the complex shapes required to get stealth out of a curved surface. If we couldn't do it until the B-2, how did the Germans just get lucky and fall upon it in '44, and if theirs was stealth why did it take 40 years for us to get stealth working?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remember the Germans were at the forefront of a lot of technology, and they tested the same as everybody else. Turn on the radar, experiment with shapes, and find one with the lowest detectablilty that will meet mission objectives.. nothing strange about that..

bazzaah2
08-18-2004, 05:59 AM
Thought the small radar sig was an accidental benefit?

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

Normally Spiny Norman was wont to be about
twelve feet from snout to tail, but when Dinsdale was depressed Norman could be
anything up to eight hundred yards long.

The190Flyer
08-18-2004, 08:16 AM
Boosher is most definetly correct! It was also refferred to as the New York Bomber, Invented by the Horten Bros. at the tail end of the war, It was nearly invisible to radar, that's where the B2 idea came from. Both prototypes crashed and burned during flight, and was never flown again, I don't really think that AEP should have this plane on the game, although it did fly, the flight was just test flights, and it never saw combat.

ASH at S-MART
08-18-2004, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HH_Emann:
When the Ho-229 was being test-flown in Oranienburg, Germany in December-February 1945, test pilot Erwin Ziller was informed via radio that the plane had dissapeared off the airfield's radar.

What the Germans didn't realize, is that they had just accidently developed a primitive RAM coating, due to the Gotha's mixed construction of conventional steel tubing (center section) and wood (wings).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I heard somwhere once that the same thing happend during the B35 development out at edwards.. And the pilot of the N9MB told a group of us out at chino once that the same was true of the N9MB.. And neither the B35 nor N9MB made use of any RAM coating.. and where not made up of alot of wood products.. So I think that whole RAM coating had nothing to do with it.. The basic low profile of a flying wing it what causes it.. a passive result.. Where as the F117 was designed to cause a radar problems with it intended shapes.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
08-18-2004, 10:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bazzaah2:
Thought the small radar sig was an accidental benefit?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It was.. Some would like to have us belive it was planned.. or due to RAM coatings.. But it wasnt.. Like the sweep wings of the Me262.. The benifits were stumbled opon

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
08-18-2004, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The190Flyer:
Boosher is most definetly correct!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hardly

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The190Flyer:
It was also refferred to as the New York Bomber,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Back then the flying wing concept was the only way to go for long distance.. due to less drag.. That is the same reaon Northrop build thier flying wings in the 40s

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The190Flyer:
Invented by the Horten Bros.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And many others

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The190Flyer:
at the tail end of the war, It was nearly invisible to radar, that's where the B2 idea came from.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Not true!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The190Flyer:
Both prototypes crashed and burned during flight, and was never flown again,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Tell it to the boys at silver hill who are restoring it.. http://airpower.callihan.cc/HTML/PoWArchive/2003/PoW5-26-03.htm
Doesnt look real burned to me

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The190Flyer:
I don't really think that AEP should have this plane on the game, although it did fly, the flight was just test flights, and it never saw combat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Enh! Nothing in the game forcing anyone to fly it.. No carrier will evelove into useing it.. So the only way it will get used is by choice

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

p1ngu666
08-18-2004, 11:11 AM
it was the materials used that made it hard to spot on radar, like mossie http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

the stealth fighter is increadibly unstable, u lose flight computer, u could hold it for a few seconds only...

the biggest drawback in combat is the lack of proper rudder for go229. in fb atleast

B2 is also surprisingly big, b52 size http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

ASH at S-MART
08-18-2004, 11:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
it was the materials used that made it hard to spot on radar, like mossie http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Than how is it the Northrop flying wings of the 40s an 50s were also hard to see on radar? They were not made up of wood products nor had RAM paint. Answer.. it was not the materials that made the wing hard to see on radar.. the basic low profile shape mades it hard for radar to see it.. small cross section.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the stealth fighter is increadibly unstable, u lose flight computer, u could hold it for a few seconds only...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes the F117 is.. As are many modern airplanes.. But there are no flight computers used on the NM9 or flying wing bombers of the 50s.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
the biggest drawback in combat is the lack of proper rudder for go229. in fb atleast<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
B2 is also surprisingly big, b52 size http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

p1ngu666
08-18-2004, 12:38 PM
true on the computers, but the f117 is actully totaly unflyable without them, they do 100s or 1000s of tiny corrections every second

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

ASH at S-MART
08-18-2004, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
true on the computers, but the f117 is actully totaly unflyable without them, they do 100s or 1000s of tiny corrections every second<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. again.. Alot of the modern aircraft require that.. As someone else pointed out.. Alot of modern aircraft are designs are *unstable* thus requring the need of computers to keep them stable. These unstable desing have the benifit of being more manuverable.. and other reasons.. But either way an initally unstabel desin require computers to keep them flying.. stable like.. Something they knew about in the past.. But could not impliment until recently with the aid of computers

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

II JG2_Oesau
08-18-2004, 09:46 PM
Yes there has been talk about the primitive RAM that was on this aircraft, though it was an accidental discovery. However it has been debated as to the real benefit that it provided.

The Radar Cross Section (RCS) is the one of the keys to stealth. No plane is invisible, its about minimising the radar return to the shortest distance between the aircraft and the radar. So, RAM absorbs radar energy, while the shape deflects the radar return away from the receiver antenna. The smaller the RCS, the closer the target will be before there is a strong enough radar return so that the aircraft can be detected.

On a side note, the open engine intakes would be prime returns of radar energy. Though during this period, the wavelength would have been longer and therefore making it harder to get a return from the engine. If you look at stealth aircraft, they all have their engines hidden from the direct line of radar (F-117 has a grill in the intakes that is smaller than the expected radar wavelength).

lbhskier37
08-18-2004, 09:56 PM
I still don't buy into it. You can't just guess and check the kind of math involved in getting a low radar cross section on curved surfaces. I believe I read somewhere that a Russian came up with the equations for stealth on curves, but no one had the computing power to solve them(a bit like the navier-stokes equations I am guessing). This is why the first stealth "fighter" had all those crazy flat surfaces, it was much easier to get stealth because you can have all these flat surfaces to deflect the signal all different ways, with curves its much more complicated (why do you think our IL2 models aren't done using curves http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif from a math guy I will tell you curves suck to work with)

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

II JG2_Oesau
08-18-2004, 10:06 PM
I understand that to calculate stealth using curves requires a lot of computing power. No argument there.

I personally don?t buy that this aircraft was "stealth". You only have to look at the testing of the Northrop's YB-149 flying wing that proved that it did not have a RCS that was that much smaller than other aircraft of it size. The only thing that was commented on was that it harder to see from the front (though the black smoke from the engines was a dead give away as to where it was).

Too many people "think" because it's a flying wing that it was "stealth". No data has been captured about it's RCS so it's all a bit too hard to comment on. That is, unless someone has access to computers to measure this and make a model to test it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif