Horten 229: What is real, what is exaggeration?

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Stephan Wilkinson

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).

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.

[harrison987]

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

[Tony Kambic]

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

[edwest]

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:

[edwest]

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

[edNorth]

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

[edwest]

Originally Posted by edNorth

Thanks Mr. West. Very interesting link. Very much appriciated. I have CIOS and FIAT etc.. Only not this Industry Report Index. This reports American Foces 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

You're welcome.



Ed

[Stephan Wilkinson]

the Ho229 was made using an He 177 tail wheel assembly as its nosewheel, and its main gear were modified Bf 109 gear legs.

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...

[Vince Malfara]

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...

[harrison987]

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