• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Northrup builds Horton 229

Naitional Geographic channel had an hour show about this Sunday night.

If I remember correctly, the results of the test were: the radar system gave them a 19 minute advantage over normal aircraft approaching, the Gotha would have cut that down to 8 minutes at normal altitude, and just 2 minutes flying along the water.

The plane was very stealthy except for the fan blades and cockpit which they really couldn't do much about back then. The times mentioned above were due to a combination of stealth and it being a faster aircraft.
 
Was a very interesting show. The HO229 is a beautiful aircraft, and the Boeing "model makers" did a superb job building the replica of the plane. Would love to see that replica placed in an air museum of some sort and just not tossed out in the trash (other than rotation thingie they had to build into the belly of the plane for it to sit on the radar tower thingie). Heck, I'l like to have the replica to turn into a sim pit!

As an aside, has anyone done the HO229 for FS9 with a VC? Ito did the plane for FS9, but no VC. Just did a quick search and found that a payware model is available for $25.

OBIO
 
Even today (think B2), just about every bit of post-WW2 aerospace endeavour, including Soyuz and the Apollo moonshots, can be traced back to mid-'40s German technology.

Jack Northrop had followed the Horten brothers flying wing technology closely, and pounced on the plans at the end of the war.
It was an idea that really needed FBW technology to mature.
Here's his 1947 YB-49
 
OBIO said:
As an aside, has anyone done the HO229 for FS9 with a VC? Ito did the plane for FS9, but no VC. Just did a quick search and found that a payware model is available for $25.
Click to expand...

I've got the payware one it's worth it.

Also watched the NG show on it. All around pretty interesting. The Ho 229 is about my favorite late war jet.

Nothrup was designing flying wings before WWII. His XB-35 was a direct competitor to the Convair B-36 and later re-engined it to jet power and renamed it the YB-49. I've got the Northrup N9M, XB-35 and YB-49 flying wings in FS9.
 
Jack Northrop and the Horten brothers were working on flying Wing at about the same time but Jack worked for Donald Douglas than Lockheed giving little time or money to work on flying wings.

The Horten brothers had little money but had time to make glider that give them the eage in flying wing in WWII.

End the end Jack got the last laugh at the USAF for canning YB-49. The USAF ended up making it again but calling it a B-2. Plus he got to see the B-2 before he dided and had the wing span right. The YB-49 and B-2 have the same wing span. 172 ft.

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation history/flying wings/Early Flying Wings.htm
 
thanks for the link boz . always been crazy about flying wing design and this horten plane is my favorite .
a great book to read about it is "the horten HO0/HO229 technical history" by david myhra .
about 280 pages of interviews about the plane with people who worked on the project along with a very high numbers of very detailed pictures of various parts of the plane in construction .
 
i don't understand why they would go to all that trouble to make a static model. why not make the actual plane, if you're going to go to all the trouble they went to anyway? at least then they coulda flown it around at airshows and stuff.
 
If I had millions to blow, I'd produce a few that were flyable... I imagine they're scared to fly it because of all the liability issues these days.
 
I am sure that making a flying version would have been several orders of magnitude more expensive then a radar target mock up.
 
Cratermaker said:
I am sure that making a flying version would have been several orders of magnitude more expensive then a radar target mock up.
Click to expand...

i'm sure you're right it would have been more expensive. however it's not like the comapny who built it is some tiny little outfit from b/f idaho. the difference in cost would not have been a significant obstacle for them.
 
Panther_99FS said:
National Geographic had stated that Nothrup wouldn't state the actual RCS data of the 229...
Click to expand...

Hum. Now We know how to make a stealth fighter.

Now just swich out the jet engines for a VW engine or something small like that. Scale it down and you could make it at home, Or say hello to suicide bomber... Er... suicide plane???:isadizzy:
 
these days, i bet the cops have good enough radar to detect something like that. the military can prolly do atc for bumble bees
 
cheezyflier said:
i don't understand why they would go to all that trouble to make a static model. why not make the actual plane, if you're going to go to all the trouble they went to anyway? at least then they coulda flown it around at airshows and stuff.
Click to expand...




For what return for Northrup ?? It's not like it would be marketable anywhere. Remember, Northrup got badly burned self-funding the development of the F-20.
 
Remember the Stormbird organization built new Me-262's. Don't know if they made a profit but they proved they could do it.
 
cheezyflier said:
these days, i bet the cops have good enough radar to detect something like that. the military can prolly do atc for bumble bees
Click to expand...

Why would they hide the RCS data for the Ho-229 if it was not at least close to a moden stealth? There is still the fact that the cockpit and engines were not shielded from RADAR what made RCS bigger but with the one F-117 shot down in the Kosovo War how to hide a cockpit and engines intake and exhaust can be found on the black market.Lets face it, if it's the size of any bird on RADAR no ATC is going to know that it's a plane tell it would be to late.
 
cheezyflier said:
if you have a bird doin 400 knots or better, it's a safe bet it ain't no bird.
Click to expand...

I'm going to jump back to my old post. Change the engine. Scale it down. The speeds will be lower than plus most RADAR not will be showing birds and bugs flying around. It would fill up the radar screen with too much stuff.Besides, The B-2 is what you said. A bird doin 400 knots. It's likely that the RADAR is not going to see any birds and bugs normaly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top