Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?

[Stephan Wilkinson]

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?

[edNorth]

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.

[Stephan Wilkinson]

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.)

[Nick Beale]

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.

[edNorth]

Originally Posted by Stephan Wilkinson

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.)

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

[edNorth]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

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.

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.

[edwest]

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

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by edNorth

Somehow says me you disliked my comment. -Ed

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

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by edwest

Hello,

There is a photo of a test pilot wearing a höhendruckanzug ... 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.

Best,
Ed West

Hi Ed,

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

Saying this aircraft 'never existed' is not supported by the facts

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.

[Stephan Wilkinson]

But I have it for fact "mineral-coal-layer" was tried as radar absorbent material.

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.