FHC Collection anything taking place?

[StangStung]

I'd suggest a bit of caution before getting your hopes up.
Just because a new owner has bought the collection (or most of it?), that first mean he shares all of Allen's goals...or extremely deep pockets.
So while it would be nice to see the rare stuff fly, don't assume all will be as it was before.

I don't think anyone has suggested he shares Allen's goals. We don't really know that, and the only person who does is Walton.

Anytime there's a change in management, whether it's Boeing or your local Micky D's, there's going to be changes.

All I'm saying is on the facts before us, this looks like a decent outcome for those of us who love warbirds.

[Lon Moer]

Just like when they studied the Horten jet flying wing when designing the B-2

Huh? You think the Ho.229 had any secrets to give after all the research since then? That little TV-show study of a full size model at San Diego was likely as much or more pseudohistory than the real thing.

Jack Northrop was developing flying wing designs while we were still at war with the Germans.

[marine air]

Yes the Horten 229 has a few secrets. 1) they made a full scale mock up and studied its radar signature at a laboratory in New England. 2) The Hortens were the only people to design flying wings that can be stalled and recovered safely. The mathematics and engineering are so complex and still ahead of everyone else.The B-2 is designed so that it can’t stall. The onboard computers won’t allow it to reach critical AOA.
Last, go to Udvar Hazy and take a stroll over to the Northrop P-61 and N9M flying wing. They’re actually fairly primitive designs. Very rudimentary. Then take a stroll over and look at the Horten designs. They have hundreds of aerodynamic tweets across the wings and airframe.
The Horten brothers were to aeronautical engineering what Mozart and Beethoven were to music.

[bdk]

Yes the Horten 229 has a few secrets. 1) they made a full scale mock up and studied its radar signature at a laboratory in New England. 2) The Hortens were the only people to design flying wings that can be stalled and recovered safely. The mathematics and engineering are so complex and still ahead of everyone else.The B-2 is designed so that it can’t stall. The onboard computers won’t allow it to reach critical AOA.
Last, go to Udvar Hazy and take a stroll over to the Northrop P-61 and N9M flying wing. They’re actually fairly primitive designs. Very rudimentary. Then take a stroll over and look at the Horten designs. They have hundreds of aerodynamic tweets across the wings and airframe.
The Horten brothers were to aeronautical engineering what Mozart and Beethoven were to music.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with much of what you wrote. No doubt the Horten Brothers were smart and creative guys though.

There were a number of flying wings designed in the '30s, '40s & '50s with varying levels of success. The N1M first flew in 1940, the N9M in 1942 and the Handley Page Manx in 1943. Most of the Horten efforts were unpowered (gliders). Virtually all the Northrop efforts were self-powered.

There is no N9M at Udvar Hazy. What you saw was the N1M. Among other things, the N1M was designed to investigate the affect of different wing sweep angles on flying wings, so the wing sweep was ground adjustable. That is why itt looks so crude. The N9M and later the B-35 & B-49 were designed with the benefit of that data.

The B-2 is designed so it can't stall? How about any modern aircraft with computer stability augmentation? F-117? F-16?

Without a horizontal stabilizer, a flying wing has to rely on positive pitch stability from the airfoil section itself. Due to the short moment arm that affords, the righting force is very weak.

[JohnB]

I'd suggest a bit of caution before getting your hopes up.
Just because a new owner has bought the collection (or most of it?), that first mean he shares all of Allen's goals...or extremely deep pockets.
So while it would be nice to see the rare stuff fly, don't assume all will be as it was before.

I don't think anyone has suggested he shares Allen's goals. We don't really know that, and the only person who does is Walton.

Anytime there's a change in management, whether it's Boeing or your local Micky D's, there's going to be changes.

All I'm saying is on the facts before us, this looks like a decent outcome for those of us who love warbirds.

My comment which you quoted had a spell check induced error.

I meant to say that just because he bought the collection DOES NOT automatically mean he shares all of Allen's goals (in terms of finishing existing projects or flying the extremely rare aircraft).
Sorry for the confusion.

As far as keeping the collection in Seattle long term, it might be a stretch since the Walton's have apparently exressed interest in building attractions in Arkansas. And I'm not aware of any ties their foundation has to the Seattle area.
If all that is keeping the museum in Seattle is a building (the land at Paine Field is leased), I would suggest if one can afford the collection, (I have heard a rumor of a $140 million selling price) a few million for a building is small change.
Just my guess, no official information.

Last edited by JohnB on Sun Aug 14, 2022 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

[old iron]

The Horten brothers were to aeronautical engineering what Mozart and Beethoven were to music.

Huh? (again). If this was true we would be seeing flying wings all over the place. Aeronautical equivalents to Mozart and Beethoven might include the Wrights or Kelly Johnson or others without the Hortens ever making even a long list.

I think the reality is quite different. The Horten Brothers were relatively minor players, glider/soarer-designers for the most part. Design and construction was hasty with inadequate political or financial support, without time for "hundreds of areodynamic tweeks across the airframe and wings". The only Horten flyer with jet engine recorded less than an hour of flight before a fatal crash. Seriously more time, money and research by Northrup produced a strategic bomber (B-49) that was 100 mph slower with significantly less bombload than the B-36... The Hortens were chasing something of a dead end.

We are in an age where sensational comparisons are made without careful analysis (Whitehead vs. Wrights, Trump vs. Lincoln) to non-critical audiences. Reimar Horten made claims decades after WWII that he incorporated deliberate Ho-229 design features to reduce radar signature. Good for TV (see the National Geographic's more sensational [to my eye] treatment of the Ho-229: https://www.natgeotv.com/ca/hitler-s-stealth-fighter), while a more careful study of the real thing rather than a modern mock-up (see https://airandspace.si.edu/collections/horten-ho-229-v3/about/is-it-stealth.cfm) shows the Ho-229 plywood to have lower rather than higher radar absoption.

[marine air]

So, you guys are saying that the Horten's were a little less Mozart and a little more Antonio Salieri; okay. Agreed, they didn't seem to be pursuing military contracts in the 1930's , like many others.
As a commercial glider and CFI-G rated pilot, they are fascinating to me because of exactly what they were doing with gliders. Gliders are perfect aerodynamic models. No torque, P-factor, or weight or counterweight to offset the engine, propellor and fuel tanks. They seemed to have a " Wright Brothers" zeal to venture into the little conquered world of flying wings . The many designs and shapes are a result of their mathematical and engineering genius constantly discovering new performance profiles. Not unlike Burt Rutan and John Roncz in the 1970s and 80s in the U.S. Much of their research was scalable as evidence by the HO-229.The jet engine technology failed the HOrtens. ( and Mackie Steinhoff.) Wilhem Horten was an ace with 7 victories on the western front and flew as Galland's wingman. So, they had a few bragging rights.
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?

[k5083]

The Horten brothers were to aerodynamics what the Marx brothers were to cinema. Kind of brilliant, mostly just goofy.

I do not know what an "aerodynamic tweet" (marine air) or an "aerodynamic tweek" (old iron) is.

I suppose an aerodynamic tweet might be what Burt Rutan posts on twitter.

I think of the Horten aircraft more as aerodynamic twerks.

August

[JohnB]

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.

Last edited by JohnB on Mon Aug 15, 2022 2:42 pm, edited 6 times in total.

[k5083]

Those are excellent points JohnB, but before you even go there, don't assume that "Horten" is the correct answer to the trivia question.

The wikipedia page listing aircraft owned by the NASM lists 4 Hortens. It also says the NASM has the following 8 types designed or co-designed by Johnson.

Model 10 (XC_35) Electra
P-38
XP-80
T-33
Constellation
F-104
U-2
SR-71

NASM also has at least 5 Heinemann designs:

SBD
A-26
D-558-2 Skyrocket
A-1
A-4

NASM has the following 7 Schmued designs:
P-51C
P-51D
FJ-1
F-86
F-100
T-38

NASM has four Messerschmitts, so that's a tie with the Hortens.

So the Hortens beat only Kurt Tank in that trivia question.

August

[Noha307]

That little TV-show study of a full size model at San Diego was likely as much or more pseudohistory than the real thing.

The Smithsonian loves to display tech showcases over more mundane aircraft which after did something.

As for what NASM thinks of the television show, I always took this quote from their "Is It Stealth?" page to sum up their feelings quite well:

The documentary also referred to the jet's storage location as "a secret government warehouse," which added to the mystique of this artifact. Since the airing of the documentary, public pressure has increased to remove the jet from its so-called secret government warehouse and put it on display. In fact, this secret warehouse is the Museum's Paul E. Garber Facility in Suitland, Maryland where a team of conservators, material scientists, a curator, and aircraft mechanic has been evaluating the aircraft.

[DoraNineFan]

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.

I think if Secretary of the AF Symington had not been so vindictive against Northrop, we'd have a YB-35 and a YB-49 on display, maybe more than one of each and some of his other work. I think he had everything aircraft scrapped, most directly in view of Northrop employees. And he followed by destroying the drawings.

[Noha307]

I think if Secretary of the AF Symington had not been so vindictive against Northrop, we'd have a YB-35 and a YB-49 on display, maybe more than one of each and some of his other work. I think he had everything aircraft scrapped, most directly in view of Northrop employees. And he followed by destroying the drawings.

I'm skeptical of the whole Northrop/Symington story as well. Are there any sources for it other than Jack Northrop himself? Not just that it the program was cancelled or even the destruction of the airframes and drawings, but specific evidence that it was Symington acting on a grudge. There were very legitimate reasons to question whether the YB-35 would have been successful.[1][2]

It sounds too much like that aspect of the story was the creation - or at least an embellishment of Mr. Northrop. It seems that it had more to do with the type of person he was - in particular his attitude and worldview. Everything about it - the threat by Symington, the way Northrop revealed the story it in a television interview, his quote upon seeing the B-2 model - is overly dramatic. If anything, the latter two suggest it was Jack Northrop who was trying to make a big deal out of it.

If anyone hasn't been privileged to read the conspiratorial website about Burnelli, the claims are very similar. In particular, the confrontation with Symington sounds a lot like President Roosevelt becoming irate at the prospect of the U.S. military acquiring a Burnelli aircraft.[3] (To be clear, I'm not suggesting one necessarily inspired the other - simply that both stories have certain elements that strain credibility.)

I do agree on one point though: It is a shame a YB-35 wasn't saved for display.

[JohnB]

If Symington and the AF had been that vindictive, why did they give them a second chance with the YB-49?
Putting jets on it wasn't going to fix the stability issues*, and the jets took up 25% of the bomb bays and cut the range.
It's max bomb load was just 16,000, less than the B-29 and it could only carry small size weapons, not the nuclear weapons of the period.

The AF doubted Northrop had the capability to build large aircraft, for a period, if the B-49 had gone ahead, they would have been built by Convair.

The desire to get something out of the program led the service to lol at 8-engine YRB-49As, then six-engine YRB-49Bs.

Seems like they got a few "second" chances.

*The recent book American Aircraft Development, World War Two Legacy, 1945-53 by Bill Norton stated that years showed the B-49 would take four minutes to accurately line up for a bombrun. The B-29 could do it in under 45 seconds. (Pg. 236).

[bdk]

*The recent book American Aircraft Development, World War Two Legacy, 1945-53 by Bill Norton stated that years showed the B-49 would take four minutes to accurately line up for a bombrun. The B-29 could do it in under 45 seconds. (Pg. 236).

Keep in mind that aircraft development is not a static thing. The above statement was a moment in time. I understand that yaw dampers were under development to control some of the inherent yaw instability (hunting). And by instability I don't mean it was prone to plummeting out of control, I mean less stability than conventional aircraft of the era.

One major disadvantage of flying wings that seldom gets pointed out is that during rotation for takeoff (or landing flare), the airfoil is decambered by the elevators (elevons) which reduces lift. Just imagine an upside down flap on your wing and you'll get the idea. Flying wings need excess wing area to overcome this. Luckily that excess wing area is pretty low drag during cruise.