marine air wrote:
So, you guys are saying that the Horten's were a little less Mozart and a little more Antonio Salieri; okay. Agreed,
Trivia question; what engineer has the most designs in the Smithsonian Collection? Kurt Tank, Willy Messerchmitt, Edgar Schmued, Kelly Johnson, Ed Heinemann or the Horten Brothers?
While I won't get into the Horton brothers technical issues, I will politely question your logic that designs in a museum equate greatness or importance.
Why are they there? Certainly not because of actual accomplishments. They are oddities and too cool to scrap.
More likely they are there because of their forward thinking, but in aviation being ahead of others isn't always a good thing if the technology isn't there to make the design practical.
Witness the YB-35 vs the B-2.
The Smithsonian loves to display tech showcases over more mundane aircraft which actually
did something.
Examples:
Which airliner was more important overall, the Concorde or 747?
Which aircraft did more in WWII, the DO-335 (or my favorite NASM "Let's display it because we have it, even though it didn't do much" whipping boy, the Aichi M6A Seiran submarine bomber) or the B-17?
In each case, the former aircraft are in display and not the latter.
Theoretical is great, but there has to be some relevance or historic importance to make something truly great?
Really, comparing the great fighters of WWII to oversize wind tunnel models?
or comparing them to Johnson stretching the state of the art to build something like the SR-71?
Another example of "if they are in a museum they MUST be great".
Let's use an automobile example...The ill-fated Tucker has a higher survival rate by percentage than Duesenbergs...and many other great cars.
Does that mean the Tucker is a better car?
The 51 Tuckers, as built, were immature designs with serious tech issues is areas like the engine and teams (you know, basic car stuff).
Yes, they had promise, and are interesting, but great?
Overall, the Horton's belong with the rest of the "Paperwaffe"...neat designs but of questionable value and no real historic impact.