Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

For an article I'm writing for Aviation History magazine, I am interested in the thoughts of knowledgeable commenters on the true merits of the Horten 229, the supposed "Hitler's Stealth Fighter."

On the one hand, we have the mini-industry of "German Wonder Weapon" fanciers who feel that every German jet, rocket, pulse jet, Natter, orbital atmosphere skimmer, Amerika Bomber and looks-good-on-paper proposal could have won the war if only it had gone on for a month longer (I exaggerate, obviously), and for them, the Ho 229 is the wonderplane shown in model-kit box art blazing through formations of B-17s.

On the other, we have the fact that the Ho 229 never really existed--just a single Ho IX V2 prototype that flew successfully just twice (plus perhaps several unlogged short flights) and then crashed fatally on its third official flight. All that exists of actual Ho 229s is never-completed partial airframes. (Whether or not one Ho 229 was fully assembled in the U. S. after the war is irrelevant.) Of course the NASM has a partial Ho IX V3 artifact that they are calling an Ho 229.

Yet this Horten flying wing has been called the progenitor of the Northrop-Grumman B-2 and the first true stealth aircraft.

Where does reality end and exaggeration begin? I don't want to be a cynic--that's too easy--but I also don't want to be taken in by the fantasies of the wonder-weapon fanboys.

Opinions?

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

I am no expert on this. Therefore my first question be, are you correctly suited make that assessment what is correct designation.
First, German designations are simple, yet many still (after 70+ years) do them incorrect. There was Go 229 or Ho 229, Horten IX but no Horten 229, I belive (in exact that spelling). Because RLM standardised and used the abbrevated form. Simple 8- was the tech system jargon. Remember the famous Soviet four year plans? They were also (used in) German.

Example be incorrect useage "Junkers Ju 88". That is like writing John Jo Lennon, when referring to an certain Beatle. No disregard meant. Example taken is only circumstantial.

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

I understand the German designation system. I am simply saying that no complete, flying Ho 220/Go 229/8-229 or whatever you want to call it actually existed. Several of them were under construction by Gotha, but that's the best you can say. The "Ho 229" that very briefly flew and crashed was a Horten Ho IX V2 prototype--i.e. the second of the Ho IX aircraft. (The Ho IX V1 was a glider.)

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

I don't think stealth was a design aim, just a byproduct of the aerodynamics and wooden construction. There was no apparent effort to reduce observability in relation to the intakes, exhausts or u/c doors, as seen on the F-117 for example. Also (IIRC) the aircraft had unresolved stability problems which likewise afflicted the later Northrop flying wing bombers. It took computers and modern flight software to overcome that kind of thing — and it wasn't available in 1945.

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Do you? Somehow says me you disliked my comment. No offense meant. Begin at the beginning. Aircraft under construction certanly exists, even before its flown or finished. Even on paper it exists. -Ed

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Reduced Radar Signature was mentioned in the movie documentary I saw, for attack on Home Chain radar. I have no clue if that is correct statement. But I have it for fact "mineral-coal-layer" was tried as radar absorbent material. Better material is the Green stuff used in old casette tapes ... All music lovin youths in ´70s - ´80s seen those ?
Already in 1973-75 period I (know) had realised one factor in "faceted" aspect of "reduced radar visibility" - by simple deflection - flat mirror faceted wings - it works to some degree, and Ho IX design has such only when viewed from the rear. But Stealth has basic flaw. Long Wave Radar sees it under all (most) circumstances. That is reason such stations were built when everbody was looking out for F-119s.

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Hello,


The internet has amplified the nonsense level out there to the point where real books written by reliable authors are my primary place to go. The best is written by Reimar Horten and Peter F. Selinger. The title is Nurflügel, ISBN 3-900310-09-2. The text is in German and English, but it would help to know a little German as at least one German photo caption is not translated into English properly. There were at least two test pilots. Lt. Erwin Ziller died in a crash, the other reported the H IX was no more difficult to fly than existing aircraft.

There is a photo of a test pilot wearing a höhendruckanzug. This is literally a high pressure (flight) suit with helmet. History tells us the Germans had no such suit. In the book, Suiting up for Space by LLoyd Mallan (1971, The John Day Company), the author tells us the Drägerwerke solved the problem of designing such a suit which "...was worn as a full-time suit in unpressurized cabins of aircraft flying above 40,000 feet." My attempt to contact the Drägerwerke about their wartime work was met with no reply.

Was the H IX a stealth aircraft? Just read Jack Northrop and the Flying Wing by Ted Coleman with Robert Wenkman (ISBN 1-55778-079-X). Mr. Coleman was Chairman of the Northrop Aircraft Inc. Board of Directors following World War II. This book will show that the flying wing design was difficult to spot on radar.

As regards the B-2 comparison, it is unmistakable. The buried engines, and while the Hortens' H IX had an obviously useful projecting tip in the back at the end of the center line, the B-2 has such a tip, called the Gust Load Alleviation System (also referred to as the "Beaver Tail" which it does not resemble).

Saying this aircraft 'never existed' is not supported by the facts. Why was a replica of this aircraft built? "...in the fall and winter of 2008, they set about building the full-scale re-creation at a restricted-access Northrop Grumman testing facility in California's Mojave Desert."

Perhaps Northrop Grumman can tell you more.



Best,
Ed West

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Happily, your friendly neighbourhood moderator sees no evidence of that in the post concerned, so no need to worry and no harm done.

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Hi Ed,

I believe Dräger made escape gear for submariners, so they certainly had expertise in a related area.

I thought the OP meant just that a full-blown pre-series or production aircraft was not completed. No question that there were prototypes which flew.

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

That has always been assumed. But the NASM rigorously analyzed the plywood covering of their artifact, with digital microscopes and spectrometers, and found there to be NO such material in the glue. The black flecks that were always regarded as carbon black mixed in with the glue to create a radar-absorbent material were simply very old, oxidized wood.

As for that dreadful National Geographic documentary featuring the Northrop "replica" of the imagined Ho 229, the replica was made entirely of wood, whereas the entire large centersection of the Ho !X V2 was in fact a cat's cradle of welded steel tubing. There also were no engines in the wooden replica. Should we be surprised that a large, engineless wooden airplane reflected no radar energy?

My own wooden airplane, a Falco (Stelio Frati design) didn't reflect radar either, until I flew close enough to a radar antenna (approach control, typically) for the energy to penetrate the airframe and paint the engine and landing gear. That usually happened at about nine miles distance.

I wouldn't have proposed that Northrop go to the effort of actually re-creating the Horten's welded-tube structure, but simply laying inside the wooden replica's structure a pile of tubing roughly equivalent to what made up the original's centersection would have sufficed. Plus roughly installing in the engine area a couple of run-out old axial-flow jets--I'm sure Northrop-Grumman had a few lying around in a hangar or warehouse somewhere--and THEN tell me how invisible to radar it is.

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

You're correct in that the suit was never used, but it did exist. The Hortens had one of their employees--not clear whether or not he was a pilot--actually wear the suit and sit in the prototype's cockpit. They found that it would have been impossible for him to operate a number of the cockpit controls without extensive modification to them, so the pressure suit was never actually used.

It was indeed designed and made by Draeger, who had specialized in manufacturing deep-sea diving gear.

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Regardless of what aircraft might have won what war, as a general statement German jet and rocket scientists were light-years ahead of the competition, including the Horten brothers.

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Dear All,

Uh, was there an answer in here somewhere?

Regards,
Richard

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

This reply defies logic. Why build a replica out of wood? To simply place it on display? No, I don't think so. I am fully aware of the internal construction of the original H IX.



Ed

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Northrop was working on his own flying wings,

• The American Northrop N-1M of 1940.
• The American Northrop N-9M - scale development aircraft for the YB-35 - of 1942.

One of the N-9s is still flying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_N-9M

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

I'm sorry you disagree, and I do agree that the replica, if not my reply, defies logic.

But facts are facts. The replica was virtually all wood, except for those parts of the cockpit that would have been visible to radar--mainly the back of the instrument panel--as well as the very first-stage fan of each engine, which was reproduced with fairly simple aluminum discs.

If you still don't believe me, go here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqgfjXaJxV8

...and watch the construction of the wooden replica.

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Richard, I doubt that anybody is going to be able to provide the definitive answer, but it's useful to me to be able to sort through the posts and to be able to see the drift of opinions of knowledgeable forum members, so I'm happy with the way the discussion has been going.

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

I think clean design on Falco be more part of its stealth features than laminated impreganted wood per se. Old wood and fibreglass gliders (that all do have metal parts, wires and tubes) show equally bad up on primary radar. Requiring them have Transponders, FLARM or ADS-B etc.

Coal = Old wood. Heated. Compressed.
Absense of RAM "proven by NASM" on NASM Go 229 specimen. Has anyone checked RAM properties of Oxidised Wood and is there a reliable source for that test?

Wiki says so "The earliest forms of stealth coating were the materials called Sumpf and Schornsteinfeger, a coating used by the German navy during World War II for the snorkels (or periscopes) of submarines, to lower their reflectivity in the 20-cm radar band the Allies used. The material had a layered structure and was based on graphite particles and other semiconductive materials embedded in a rubber matrix. The material's efficiency was partially reduced by the action of sea water.[3][4] Germany also pioneered the first aircraft to use RAM during World War II, in the form of the Horten Ho 229. It used a carbon-impregnated plywood that would have made it very stealthy to Britain's primitive radar of the time. It is unknown if the carbon was incorporated for stealth reasons or because of Germany's metal shortage.[5]"

3. Hepcke, Gerhard. "The Radar War, 1930-1945" (PDF). Radar World.
4. "The History of Radar". BBC. 2003-07-14
5. Shepelev, Andrei and Ottens, Huib. Ho 229 The Spirit of Thuringia: The Horten All-wing jet Fighter. London: Classic Publications, 2007. ISBN 1-903223-66-0.

Having read quite a lot on many things, say either I am wron gor I am wrong.

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

That is not supported by the fact that the company that made the suit did not put a pilot in it for show. This is supported by two of the books I mentioned. It was routinely worn after development was complete. The person wearing the suit is identified as a pilot. A never used 'emergency suit' was designed that was supposed to save the wearer by rapid entry if the cabin pressure was lost. A photo or two of that suit was published. It was that suit that would inhibit the pilot from operating any controls after inflation. It would have been more suitable for passengers in larger aircraft.

The history of Draeger goes far back. The Draeger Rescue Apparatus is mentioned in an article published in The Engineering and Mining Journal in 1911, and refers to training on the system in Washington state.


Ed

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Hey, hard to say anybody who has "read a lot on many things" is wrong. Or wron. But thank you for your information.

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Where did I say that I didn't believe you? What matters is time wasted by a well-known aircraft manufacturer on building a replica that was not a replica at all. Of an aircraft that did not exist? Again, logic dictates this is not the way to look at the "replica" or why it was constructed. Being familiar with the aerospace industry since World War II, this qualifies as a complete waste of time in every sense of the word.


Ed

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Having seen the programme they built it for, I'd say that "complete waste of time" is a pretty fair description. I didn't remember that it was Northrop who constructed the mock-up (to me, "replica" suggests much more detail than the minimal level they went for). They were trying to simulate its RCS, not built an accurate-in-all-departments 8-229 (more's the pity!).

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Dear All,

We seem to be stuck on the issue of radar invisibility. How about the rest of the story?

Regards,
Richard

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Ed (and Nick), Northrop spent $250,000 and 2,500 hours to build the "replica," my sources tell me. And it was Northrop that built it. For that minuscule expenditure (for a company that builds bombers that cost one billion dollars apiece), they got an hour of TV time under the guise of National Geographic and ran a "documentary" film that we're still talking about.

That is not "time wasted," that is an enormous PR coup.

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

What struck me when I saw the NG document film on the Horten plane was the fact that they IIRC tested the "replica" against CH radar which was odd because even in 1940 the job to detect low-lewel a/c was that of the CHL radars not CH radars and during 1943 British built even better low-level detection network using 10 cm CHEL (Chain Home Extra Low) radars, RAF called them Type 14 but they were in fact Naval Type 277s.

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Perhaps not from Northrop's point of view but, I found the programme a total waste of time in terms of the standard of argument and evidence it presented. Surely, the fundamental question of the 229's effectiveness must be "was it airworthy?" and in one important respect it appears that it wasn't. Its stability/controllability problems seem to be a characteristic of a pure all-wing design. The Northrop YB-49 added vertical surfaces but still experienced similar problems, I think.

Computerised means to make inherently unstable aircraft flyable exist now but they didn't in 1945 and we'd need an engineer or aerodynamicist to tell us whether a fix could have been achieved with the technology then available. It doesn't matter how stealthy your plane is if it crashes before it comes near the enemy.

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

"enormous PR coup"? Honestly? I work in PR. They didn't need to build a non-production aircraft, surrounded by myth and rumor. A documentary showing an aircraft that made no contribution to the war effort is not a PR coup. Prop designers from Hollywood could have built this nonsense thing. In fact, a total amateur has built full-scale replicas of the Natter and a few other German barely functional prototypes. I've seen the photos of his work and knowing the originals well enough, they could pass muster with the average viewer. To the viewer who knew nothing, it was nothing.

How many aircraft manufacturers are there in the US? Northrop Grumman needs PR about as much as Apple or Microsoft.



Ed

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Nick, that's interesting. Did the Horten have stability/control problems? All I was aware of was the hunting and Dutch roll tendency that would have made it a terrible gun platform (or precision bomber).

Was there more in the way of stability problems? Of course all of the stuff I've read based on interviews with the Hortens, largely by David Myhra (who seems to have made an entire career out of writing about the Hortens), professes that the Horten wings flew perfectly.

Being a pilot, I do understand the need for SAS and/or vertical surfaces on a flying wing, but all of the Horten fanboys seem to think those airplanes were vice-free...

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Hard to imagine...

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Please refrain from straying from the content and making personal remarks.





Ed

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

It was just something I read after seeing the programme (which I think mentioned a stability problem but not any remedy). The "infallible" Wikipedia: "The H.IX V2 reportedly displayed very good handling qualities, with only moderate lateral instability (a typical deficiency of tailless aircraft)." The same source talks about stability problems on the Northrop bombers which it was hoped, in 1950, to overcome with a new model of autopilot.

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

HI,

To answer your original question...

The Ho229 was not deigned for stealth. it was designed for SPEED, WEIGHT, and ease of construction. Wood was plentiful...aluminum and steel was not. This is why every late-war aircraft (1944/1945), normally having aluminum and steel parts...were switched to wood. eg.) Me109 Vertical Stab and rudder, instrument panel, belly hatches, first aid hatch...Fw190 D9/Ta152 Control surfaces, instrument panel, etc. He162...Me163...etc.

Anything that could be replaced with WOOD..."was"...this was to save on the rare steel and aluminum. Metal factories were under HEAVY stress from allied bombing...which is why wood for fighters was thought about in the first place. Plus every furniture maker could make parts, as opposed to being specific to an aircraft manufacture.

As Horton was gifted at gliders...and materials late in the war were scarce, they went to wood as much as they could. It had NOTHING to do with "stealth" or radar. They technology was still fairly new...and the main goal was to take down bombers and save their country......not fly all the way to England to avoid the radar system.

The sleek design was for speed and aerodynamics...the construction materials due to what was on hand.

I think the "stealth" ("Hitler's Stealth Fighter") name was only a term that was brought up in the last 20 years...simply because "TODAY'S" technology brought that term about. No one was calling it a "stealth" fighter in the 1950's. It was what it was - a lightweight, easy to build, aerodynamic glider, deigned to mount jet engines for speed.

There wasn't a directive to "build a fighter capable of evading radar". The name "stealth" was an unknown bi-product (as mentioned above)...and not on Germany's mind at the time (they had better things to do).

The Ho229 existed, in it's prototype form...

Just like the Messerschmitt_P.1101 existed...in prototype form (it was copied to make the Bell X-5).

Whether built in parts...assembled afterward, etc...the Ho IX V3 is the SAME aircraft as the Go/Ho229. The only difference being the prototype designation. It existed because there is one...right as NASM.

If you are asking if an aircraft not used in combat should be termed as something was "existed" is up to you.

Whether it flew in combat...or was in trials for combat...in my opinion it existed. if it was only on a drawing board and nothing was ever attempted to make one...like the Me609, or other oddball fantasy items termed "luft '46"...then no...they never existed.

Hope this helps.


Mike

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Thanks Harrison.

I was surprised in reading Sengfelder's book on German Landing Gear, the Ho229 was made using an He177 tail wheel assembly as its nosewheel, and its main gear were modified BF109 gear legs.

Tony

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Hello Mike,


As a professional researcher, there must be the positive and negative approach to this subject. The British began collecting German technical intelligence during the war using a special team called T-Force, which was not their official military designation. The T stood for Target and they carried a special ID card that allowed them to go anywhere, seize any building, any personnel, documents, prototypes and anything else. The regular soldiers that observed them were unaware of their status and regarded them as thieves.

As a researcher, I must investigate evidence for and against. I cannot be biased. The British produced B.I.O.S. reports detailing their findings along with interrogation information and sometimes, photographs of what they found. The Hortens worked with Dynamit AG regarding certain types of wood bonding adhesives and they used plastics for glider construction. One report described the use of wood and plastics by other aircraft manufacturers. The Americans created their own T-Force which worked along with the British, which meant that C.I.O.S. reports were also published. Here is an example of a report title:


CIOS File No. XXXI-8:

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Plastics and Wooden Parts in German Aircraft


Now I have found references to various chemical sealers. One was called "polystal." Its composition was a poly-di-isocyanate resin made by the I.G. Farbenindustrie. It was used for sealing integral wing fuel tanks. Now this was for an all wood wing which was itself bonded together with "Kaurit-W" whose chemical mixture is not described in that report. "Kaurit-WHK" is also mentioned as a bonding agent. It may be a variant mixture of Kaurit-W.


Now the word "stealth" was not used but two reports were issued concerning German work on "radar camouflage." Doing this type of research usually involves years. There were other technical intelligence teams in the field which produced reports: F.I.A.T. or Field Intelligence Agency, Technical: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libelecrefmat/6/
The American Counter-Intelligence Corps worked with T-Force but a complete history of the CIC has not been published.

So, answers do not come quickly and diligent research that is totally unbiased must be the standard operating method.




Ed

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

Thanks Mr. West. Very interesting link. Very much appriciated. I have CIOS and FIAT etc.. Only not this Industry Report Index. This reports American Forces were testing captured German equipment, at Wright Field, well before any shooting incidents between US and German forces happened. Six months before Pearl Harbour. Not that is any news now. -Ed

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

You're welcome.



Ed

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

I've seen that reference to the Greif tailwheel many times, and I have always wondered, is it really true? Is that actually an He 177 tailwheel? The Bf 109 main gear I don't doubt, but the scale of that nosegear on the Ho 9 is amazing. Can anybody confirm that it is indeed a He 177 tailwheel? What a monster that airplane must have been, if so...

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

No luck in finding definitive proof that the He-177 tail wheel was used as the nose gear wheel on the 229 but the link below shows the size of the He-177 tail gear minus the wheel. Quite a beast.

http://aviationarchaeology.co.uk/wp-...9/He177-41.jpg

The tire size for the Horton is shown as a Continental 1015 X 350 in drawings.

Hope this helps.

Vince...

Re: Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?
 

100% the nose gear was in-fact the the tail wheel assembly from an He-177.

Main legs were made from modified Me109 gear parts.

1015x380 Nose Wheel (same as the Ar234V, Do335, Ta154, and Me210 Main Wheels)

740x210 Main Gear Wheel - I think this was only used on the Ho229