Horten Flying Wing and stealth

Not sure how many of you folks saw the National Geographic programme on "Hitlers Stealth Aircraft"
Hitler's Stealth Fighter | National Geographic Channel
as mentioned on Tom's Oranienburg Airfield thread
http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/war-air/21701-oranienburg-airfield-today.html
but I have been chatting with Tom about the way the Northrop chaps went about "proving" that the plane was built with stealth in mind.
There is no doubt that this is a fascinating plane but it having "low observable" charicteristics are (to my mind) an accidental bonus of the Horten's design philosophy.

What do you guys think?

And as an asside, Just how far behind was Jack Northrop, if at all?

 

Andy,

It is strange that wartime secrecy precludes new ideas and inventions from being shared openly and sometimes not even to your allies.

The Flying wing concept was one such project and planes were being built at the same time thousands of miles away from each other without Northrop and the Horten brothers being aware of each others existance.

There appeared to be a lot of prejudice by the conventional aircraft builders to flying wing concept planes, both in Germany and America, so it is a miracle that both projects took off so to speak.

The Horten brothers were all Luftwaffe officers, one being killed over the channel, whilst flying a minelaying mission.

The two surviving brothers had an ear to Göring and at a time when metal was in short supply especially the aluminium required for aircraft building, their novel metal tube and wooden construction proved a winner with the authorites.

In this respect I do not believe that it was built to be a stealth fighter per se, but it worked out that way.
Whether or not this was ever openly discussed is a matter of conjecture, but according to the Americans who made the replica ( not entirely as per the original as no metal tubing was used ) the radar signature was 20 less than a normal fighter aircraft.

What is significant was that this plane was powered by two jet engines and proved that the plane was fast and manouvreable when tested.

I believe there were about twenty test flights before an engine flame out caused the plane to crash and as a result the test pilot was killed.

It is also significant that this plane was fitted with ejector seat and full pressurisation. It also has a parachute fitted near the "tail" on the upper surface, which was released to slow the plane down on landing.

Altogether a marvellous piece of technology, which was in advance of the Northrop design.

There was a night fighter prototype version that was almost completed, when the factory was over run by the American forces.

Operation Paperclip saw all innovative technology being crated up and shipped back to America for testing, Britain also benefiting from this operation.

A great subject to research.

Regards
Tom

 

I did see the show, came away with the impression they were working backwards from an already decided conclusion. What I don't recall them addressing was what particular use a 'stealth' characteristic fighter would have been to the Luftwaffe in late 1944 to early 1945? I seem to recall a remarkably poor CGI imagining of an attack across the English Channel against an unsuspecting radar station on the southeast coast. While that would have been a potentially devasting operation in 1940, what might have been the obejctive in late 1944, and perhaps also why send a fighter to do a bomber's job?

Perhaps I'm just a little jaded by all the Luftwaffe '46 type shows to have given it a fair shout though!

 

Stealth my posterior, that was a concept that came much much later, tested in the 70s with Lockheed's Have Blue. Yes, some older flying wing designs have smaller radar cross sections but those are intrinsical, not a feature designed into in purpose.

A fine place for flying wings (Northrop, Lippisch, Horten, etc) is at Nurflügel.

 

What I don't recall them addressing was what particular use a 'stealth' characteristic fighter would have been to the Luftwaffe in late 1944 to early 1945? I seem to recall a remarkably poor CGI imagining of an attack across the English Channel against an unsuspecting radar station on the southeast coast. While that would have been a potentially devasting operation in 1940, what might have been the obejctive in late 1944, and perhaps also why send a fighter to do a bomber's job?



Apparently Horten DID attempt some limited form of "passive stealth" intentionally, when carbon was mixed into the glue that laminated the ply....but ALSO he was apparently only interested in attempting to block the frequencies used by Chain Home :mellow: Problem being - by 1944-45 Britain was lousy with radars exploiting different frequencies IIRC So the fighter MAY have displayed a limited, "fuzzy" signature...which thinking back to the first time I saw that programme, WAS what the modern testers dicovered. It certainly didn't mask the aircraft completely...

And in 1944-45 WE had a "smart" weapon that could fill the air ahead of a possible airborne target with nasty shrapnel - the VT proximity shell! It would have been perfect for saturating the area around a "fuzzy" target....

 

I suppose if the war went on to Luft46 the Jerries would out-B2 the F-22

 

I suppose if the war went on to Luft46 the Jerries would out-B2 the F-22

ZA!... "I suppose if" and "Luft46".... Is that a whiff of "whatiffery"??!
No I know it isnt... just joking.

I am not interested in the Nazi UFO / Horten=B2 cobblers. I was just interested in the plane because I tried building a generic flying wing model about 20 years ago and it was decidedly unstable. When I finally got it to stop nose lifting end over end, I only succeded in getting it to porpoise.

Without trendy computer stabilisation these things are buggers to fly (in my poor experience) though I guess having someone actually in the thing makes a difference.

On a side note (showing my ignorance here) The Komet (and DH 108 and X4) are all described at being "tail less"...
When did the back wings become the "tail" and when did that big sticky up thing at the back stop being the tail (mutter mutter "vertical stabiliser" my ass.. mutter mutter...) ?

 

Ahhh bum... now that I put the correct spelling of Horten (not Horton as I originally tried) into the search I found the previous thread about this subject.

If some kind mod would merge this with the older thread as it is pretty similar.

 

ZA!... "I suppose if" and "Luft46".... Is that a whiff of "whatiffery"??!
No I know it isnt... just joking.

I am not interested in the Nazi UFO / Horten=B2 cobblers. I was just interested in the plane because I tried building a generic flying wing model about 20 years ago and it was decidedly unstable. When I finally got it to stop nose lifting end over end, I only succeded in getting it to porpoise.

Without trendy computer stabilisation these things are buggers to fly (in my poor experience) though I guess having someone actually in the thing makes a difference.

On a side note (showing my ignorance here) The Komet (and DH 108 and X4) are all described at being "tail less"...
When did the back wings become the "tail" and when did that big sticky up thing at the back stop being the tail (mutter mutter "vertical stabiliser" my ass.. mutter mutter...) ?

Therein lies the problem which plagued all flying wing designs pre-digital age. Well, that and the poor jet engine designs the Germans had to use due to lack of metal alloy material for their turbine blades. You don't get much out of a "stealthy" (even if accidentaly) aircraft if it flames out or just simply crashes due to poor stability.

Jack Northrop wasn't behind the Horten brothers really, his B-36 and B-49 wings actually did fly, as did his beautiful little XP-79. Sadly the little fighter was also unstable, and it crashed as well, killing the best "wing pilot" in the system.

We (America) also had the weird but actually quite impressive "flying flapjack" on the runway. I can only imagine what that Zimmerman (I think) design might have done with a jet engine instead of piston engines driving huge props might have accomplished. That is a front on view in the final pic of the "flapjack".

Here is a link to a great site on the "wings" of all nations at the time.

Goto:

Nurflugel

and:

Unreal Aircraft - Weird Wings - Chance Vought V-173 / XF5U 'Flying Flapjack'

 

ZA!... "I suppose if" and "Luft46".... Is that a whiff of "whatiffery"??!
No I know it isnt... just joking.

I am not interested in the Nazi UFO / Horten=B2 cobblers. I was just interested in the plane because I tried building a generic flying wing model about 20 years ago and it was decidedly unstable. When I finally got it to stop nose lifting end over end, I only succeded in getting it to porpoise.

Without trendy computer stabilisation these things are buggers to fly (in my poor experience) though I guess having someone actually in the thing makes a difference.

On a side note (showing my ignorance here) The Komet (and DH 108 and X4) are all described at being "tail less"...
When did the back wings become the "tail" and when did that big sticky up thing at the back stop being the tail (mutter mutter "vertical stabiliser" my ass.. mutter mutter...) ?
That was because you were a piece of an ass! Who needs computers to fly one?

Have you ever hear of CG location? Variable incidence on a flying wing, geometric or aerodynamic?

Go here, select "tailless" in and try again

 

That was because you were a piece of an ass! Who needs computers to fly one?

Have you ever hear of CG location? Variable incidence on a flying wing, geometric or aerodynamic?

I guess the theory in my 1937 book on aerodynamics may have covered those subjects, and I "could" have applied it to a none straight wing, but I probably fell asleep while reading!
You know what we men are like. There is only one use for an instruction manual, and that is to prop up the wobbly leg on the coffee table :p

Go here, select "tailless" in and try again

Wow, nice site. Funny how putting "RC model plans" into Google does not find this site. Well, it is bookmarked now!

Still doesn't answer my question about when the big, sticky up thing at the back of a plane stopped being called the "tail".. I guess it will remain a mystery ....

 

Still doesn't answer my question about when the big, sticky up thing at the back of a plane stopped being called the "tail".. I guess it will remain a mystery ....

I'm just taking a WAG here, but I believe the term "tail-less" came about with the removal of the horizontal portion of the normal tails. With just a verticle stabilizer, they weren't really "tailed" now were they with the wing itself providing the bulk of the horizontal stabilization. Lippish and his delta wings are the example I am thinking of, they were called "tail-less" since they lacked the normal configuration.

 

Here's an interesting documentary on the stealth bomber of Hitlers that was being developed and tested.

YouTube - Hitlers Stealth Fighter 1/5

I didn't think they were anywhere near this kind of technology. Makes a very interesting watch.

 

We talked about this recently here.

 

Apologies all round. Please feel free to delete this thread i'll post the link to the series in the original thread when this one has gone.

 

Yep, thats the programme, but at least folk without the National Geographic channel can watch it now
Thanks for the YouTube link PrivateSmart.

Maybe some well meaning mod will merge the threads (hint hint )

 

Slaphead, as you wish the thread has now been merged!

 

Thankyou Mod.

I've just read through all the comments in here and i have to say your all a well educated bunch I'm sure I'll be looking up some of the technical terms your using on Google .

Back to the subject though, do you think these sorts of aircraft would have been used by the axis if the war had lasted another year.

Excuse the ifs and buts.

 

Now you've gone into forbidden territory, Laschiate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate

Tell me something, do you think that by using the Ho229 or whatever, the Germans would find oil under the Bendlerstrasee? No? I thought not as well.

End of the What-If.

 

Hi PrivateSmart,

WW2Talk members dont do "what if"s, We prefer to mull over what did happen... some of that is far enough beyond belief to entertain the biggest what iffer

Basically the argument comes down to
As Za would say.. The allies invent the A Bomb... No one else did... You cannot get more of a war ender than a couple of nukes on your head !

There is tons of technology to mull over (in all the theatres of war) and I am not the only person on the forum that would love to see a Horten fly. I have some doubts about the programmes conclusions and thats a topic worth chatting about, so feel free to add to the discussuion about what the Horten brothers actually achieved and what the Northrop engineers did and what the Smithsonian institute should do with the only survivor (hello and welcome to the forum bye the way )

Andy