Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?

[Stephan Wilkinson]

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.

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.

[VtwinVince]

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.

[Richard T. Eger]

Dear All,

Uh, was there an answer in here somewhere?

Regards,
Richard

[edwest]

Originally Posted by Stephan Wilkinson

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.

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

[Kutscha]

Originally Posted by Stephan Wilkinson

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

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

[Stephan Wilkinson]

This reply defies logic. Why build a replica out of wood? To simply place it on display? No, I don't think so.

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.

[Stephan Wilkinson]

Uh, was there an answer in here somewhere?

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.

[edNorth]

Originally Posted by Stephan Wilkinson

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.

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.

[edwest]

Originally Posted by Stephan Wilkinson

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.

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

[Stephan Wilkinson]

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

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