Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?

[edwest]

Originally Posted by Stephan Wilkinson

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.

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

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by edwest

What matters is time wasted by a well-known aircraft manufacturer on building a replica that was not a replica at all .. 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

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!).

[Richard T. Eger]

Dear All,

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

Regards,
Richard

[Stephan Wilkinson]

What matters is time wasted by a well-known aircraft manufacturer on building a replica that was not a replica at all.

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.

[Juha]

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.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Stephan Wilkinson

Ed (and Nick), Northrop ... 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.

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.

[edwest]

Originally Posted by Stephan Wilkinson

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.

"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

[Stephan Wilkinson]

Its stability/controllability problems seem to be a characteristic of a pure all-wing design.

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...

[Stephan Wilkinson]

I work in PR.

Hard to imagine...

[edwest]

Originally Posted by Stephan Wilkinson

Hard to imagine...

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





Ed