Hitler's Stealth Fighter?

RickH · **Posted:** Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:34 pm

I think they were trying to measure return signal degradation. There was some degradation, I think, on the order of about 20%, at least in the area they showed.

I believe that the charcoal was used simply as a filler in the glue. I also believe that the reduced radar signature may have been an unintentional byproduct of the addition of the carbon. I'll try to look a little closer in the section that dealls with the H IX construction and what Reinhard Horten states in his own words.

As was stated in DaveM2s post, I don't believe low radar observable was even remotely part of the Horten Bros. agenda, like Jack Northrop, I believe that they were simply pushing their flying wing agenda, the impetus of war and the free flowing money for new projects was the perfect situation for govt funding to extend their concept of the flying wing.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:41 pm

RickH wrote:

I think they were trying to measure return signal degradation. There was some degradation, I think, on the order of about 20%, at least in the area they showed.

I believe that the charcoal was used simply as a filler in the glue. I also believe that the reduced radar signature may have been an unintentional byproduct of the addition of the carbon. I'll try to look a little closer in the section that dealls with the H IX construction and what Reinhard Horten states in his own words.

As was stated in DaveM2s post, I don't believe low radar observable was even remotely part of the Horten Bros. agenda, like Jack Northrop, I believe that they were simply pushing their flying wing agenda, the impetus of war and the free flowing money for new projects was the perfect situation for govt funding to extend their concept of the flying wing.

Hey Rick, I don't know about the German stuff, but the Northrop guys and the B-49 had the same results of low radar return, and that was stated as being a side product as well.

RickH · **Posted:** Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:51 pm

Mustangdriver said;

Quote:

Hey Rick, I don't know about the German stuff, but the Northrop guys and the B-49 had the same results of low radar return, and that was stated as being a side product as well.

I knew I heard that somewhere before !

From my post on an earlier page,

Quote:

It is common knowledge that the YB-49, a 172 ft, all metal flying wing, had an extremely low RCS when compared with its contemporaries. A simple test was flown by the YB-49 against a coastal radar station and the radar operators were supposed to let them know when the YB-49 showed up on the scope. The YB-49 was nearly on top of the station before it was visible.

As brilliant as these guys were, they barely knew how radar worked at this stage, I think that, other than using "Window" the idea of using design and construction methods to reduce the radar signature was an unknown concept to them. As I said, a happy byproduct of the process.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:29 pm

Sorry Rick I didn't see that post.

old iron · **Posted:** Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:50 am

Thought I would bump this back up again.

Some additional photos, including some shots of the plane in 1945 can be seen on this web site:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/horten-go229_3.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp%3Faircraft_id%3D105&usg=__iwTPY55b6WeBDObBDCqpLK2_3EQ=&h=236&w=300&sz=22&hl=en&start=13&sig2=83w68bQyVY9rlUWf0nnt1g&um=1&tbnid=ryaezGpkPgRkiM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522gotha%2B229%2522%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26um%3D1&ei=f_JVSry8KJG1lAen5_HoAg

There are 16 photos altogether. One of the photos in Garber storage shows that it does have the engines in place. All the 1945 photos are of fuselage only.

RickH · **Posted:** Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:17 pm

A quote from the military factory link posted earlier;

Quote:

American researchers would eventually come back to study the Go 229 flying wing in later years, leading up to the development of the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber which, in essence, became the Go 229 dream realized decades before.

I guess the Northrop team forgot about their own in house Flying Wing designs. Must be coincidental that the XB35/YB49 and the B2 have the same 172 ft wingspan !

Rajay · **Posted:** Fri Aug 07, 2009 4:54 pm

old iron wrote:

I have not seen the National Geographic show, but the premise there - that the Horton Brothers build it as they did to give it "stealth" capabilities - is completely made for TV. The reason why the plane is made primarily of wood is that was the only material readily available late in the war, and also probably influenced by the glider-building experience of the designers. The Go.229 should not be expected to be any more stealth than the mostly-wood DH Mosquitos of the same era.

Asking if the Horton Brothers designed the airplane to counter RADAR is putting more modern knowledge into an earlier historical context. The premise is incorrect, and any stealth capabilities will be purely coincidental and not part of the design criteria. The Hortons to my knowledge did no experimentation on anti-RADAR technologies or designs. The all-wing design was an extension of their pre-war experiments with all-wing gliders.

In other words, the National Geographic show should be seen as typical television rather than something expected to provide much historical insight. Just my two cents...

As I mention here (see link) where there are a two original 1945 photos of an actual Ho229 (on page 2, see Photos 26 & 27)...
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... 264#310264

I'm no radar expert, but it seems to me that the big spinning metal disks of the propellers on the Mosquito would reflect a lot more radar than the buried engine nacelles and relatively small and hidden compressor blades on the 229. Also, from everything that I've ever read about stealth technology, the blended wing and tail-less fuselage of the 229 would also contribute to its stealthiness compared to the relatively conventional configuration of the Mossie, which includes a big slab-sided vertical stabilizer and rudder.

I have read that the Northrop YB-49 Flying Wing and the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird actually had pretty good "stealth" qualities too - without anyone ever intentionally researching or developing them for those aircraft. So, saying that the Ho229 didn't have them just because they weren't trying for them does not necessarily "compute."

I have not yet finished reading this thread, so apologies if I'm repeating something that someone else has already said. Once again, all of this is IMHO.

Rajay · **Posted:** Fri Aug 07, 2009 5:00 pm

old iron wrote:

Also, I have always wondered how the Germans expected to be able to easily maintain or change the engines. The Jumos engines needed overhaul every ten hours! Me.262s, He.162s and Ar.234s had their engines in convenient pods, but the Horton had its engines within the wing. I don't see easy access from top or bottom. It has looked to me as if the wings were essentially built around the engines.

Maybe they could have mounted the engines on rails just like the J-79's in an F-4. You just slide them into place, lock them down and hook up all of the plumbing and so forth. Who knows, maybe we got the idea from them in the first place...just like swept wings. Them Gerries sure could be clever folks. (Among other things.)

I have read that the Jumo's didn't even last as long as 10 hours - sometimes only 4-5 hours between overhauls. Also, when Mig-15's first came on the warbird scene, there was an article that I read some place that said their engines were routinely OH'd about every 400 hours while in Soviet bloc service - a little bit better than 5-10 hours.

Does anyone know what the average TBO for same generation GE J-47 or Allison J-33 turbojets was? How about the J-57's and J-79's that came in the following generation of jet engines?

clangjr · **Joined:** Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:48 pm **Posts:** 106

Sorry to dig up this thread from the recent past, but I happened to stumble across an interesting thread about this plane....on a VW board of all places. I'll post the link here until I can get the original poster to share what he found here.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=4300098

Holedigger · **Posted:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:34 pm

Some very cool pics there. It would be great to get that person to post here, more would be even better!!

RickH · **Posted:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:39 pm

Rayjay, The Mig 15 used a similar engine to the F-86. It is a centrifugal flow engne . The Jumo's were axiall flow. Their main problem was due to inferior metallurgy in the hot section and the poor design/contruction of the turbine wheel.

James D · **Posted:** Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:36 am

I´m sure I once saw original film on the net of the Go 229 in flight. Can´t find it now. Anyone know where it might be?

Warbird Information Exchange

Hitler's Stealth Fighter?

Who is online