Horten Bros. vs Northrop
Teu...@webtv.net
champion Northrop's designs. But didn't the Hortens start their research
earlier, build and test more models, and had the most advanced flying
wing at the end of the war?
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger'
- Friedrick Nietzsche
Donald Phillipson
> Who really knew more about flying wings? Since the US won the war, we
> champion Northrop's designs. But didn't the Hortens start their research
> earlier, build and test more models, and had the most advanced flying
> wing at the end of the war?
1. Nobody can prove this about the Hortens, because
they destroyed their data and models in 1945 (Brian
Ford wrote 30 years ago in his German Secret Weapons.)
2. Flying wings were not deployed operationally
until the 1980s. This is too many years after 1945
for anyone to trace comparative German or US knowledge
at that date.
--
| Donald Phillipson, dphil...@trytel.com |
| Carlsbad Springs, Ottawa, Canada |
Cub driver
>Who really knew more about flying wings? Since the US won the war, we
>champion Northrop's designs. But didn't the Hortens start their research
>earlier, build and test more models, and had the most advanced flying
>wing at the end of the war?
All that is true. Indeed, the B-2 (which is made by Northrop and has a
172 ft wingspan, just like Northrop's failed B-35/49 of the 1940s) is
often cited as a vindication of Northrop's genius, but in fact reminds
me more of a scaled-up version of the Horten fighter-bomber of 1945.
Unlike the case with turbojet research, however, both the German and
the Anglo-American developments in all-wing aircraft came to dead end.
Jack Northrop and Reimar Horten (Walter was more of a pilot than an
engineer) were remarkably similar--obsessives who cared very little
about the practical application of their all-wing aircraft. I have
some related stuff and links posted at http://danford.net/edwards.htm
- Dan Ford
Glen Edwards and the Flying Wing: http://danford.net/edwards.htm
nitf...@my-deja.com
Teu...@webtv.net wrote:
> Who really knew more about flying wings? Since the US won the war, we
> champion Northrop's designs. But didn't the Hortens start their
research
> earlier, build and test more models, and had the most advanced flying
> wing at the end of the war?
Tough call. Certainly, the Horten borthers tested numerous gliders and
prop-models, culminating in the Ho-IX. However, much of their "fame"
stems from their paper designs for various fighters and bombers, as
frankly much of the flying wings from Messerschmitt and Lippisc did as
well. I lean away from putting too much stock in paper projects, as
they always LOOK great, but don't always work quite as well as the
contractor had assured you.
It may be unfair to criticize the Ho-IX too harshly, as it was somewhat
makeshift (e.g., the delivered engines being 25% too large for the
holes in the wing), but it was supposed to be rather unstable except in
a glide. This may have contributed to the destruction of the first
prototype.
OTOH, the Northrop N-9M flew quite well, and the XB-49 was supposed to
be quite pleasant to fly, once they got the troublesome engines of the
XB-36 replaced. However, flying wings were considered to have too much
drag to compete with speedier "normal" planes, so it was dropped.
Politics might have kicked in too.
Chances are, if the Hortens had the same advantages as Northrop (more
developing money and the avoidance of having your country come apart
around you) they would have been in the same class. As it is, they are
probably the only two companies in that period who could build workable
flying wings for military service.
Both worthy of respect, and the idea of a Ho-229 (IX) N-9M matchup in
the skies over Germany is pretty darned cool.
Matt Flegal
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Nightjar
[This has wandered away from World War II. Bring it back around.
Further responses without World War II content will be rejected by the
moderators. -- the Moderators]
"Cub driver" <9...@danford.net> wrote in message
news:93i914$393$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU...
>
> Unlike the case with turbojet research, however, both the German and
> the Anglo-American developments in all-wing aircraft came to dead end.
>
In the 1950s, Reimar Horten moved to Argentina to develop the IA38 cargo
aircraft, which was strongly based on the Ho VIII. It flew in 1960, but was
eventually cancelled. The Handley Page HP 115, which was used for
preliminary work on the design of Concorde, was also based on some of his
concepts.
Nightjar
[This has wandered away from World War II. Bring it back around.
Further responses without World War II content will be rejected by the
moderators. -- the Moderators]
"Cub driver" <9...@danford.net> wrote in message
news:93i914$393$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU...
>
> Unlike the case with turbojet research, however, both the German and
> the Anglo-American developments in all-wing aircraft came to dead end.
>
In the 1950s, Reimar Horten moved to Argentina to develop the IA38 cargo
Cub driver
>1. Nobody can prove this about the Hortens, because
>they destroyed their data and models in 1945 (Brian
David Myhra, The Horten Brothers and Their All-Wing Aircraft
(Schiffer, 1998) is a very detailed and lavishly illustrated account
of all the Horten a/c, including 3-views.
One of the Horten test pilots survived into the 1990s. I interviewed
him on the subject of stability, which was the bane of the Northrop
B-35/49, and it was his contention that all the Northrops had their
c.g. too far back, and that the Hortens did not exhibit the tail-slide
and possibly backward rotation that afflicted the YB-49 (and likely
killed Glen Edwards) and that also made the British all-wing so
dangerous to fly.
Be that as it may, I felt that the WWII all-wings (and certainly the
big Northrop bomber) were fatally unstable. It was not until
computer-driven pilotage became possible, forty years later, that the
design was vindicated. (And then only because of its stealth
capabilities, which were unknown to either designer when he did his
preliminary work, though pilots of both the Horten fighter-bomber and
the Northrop "intercontinental" bomber both noticed it in trials.)
Devi Deveraux
This is a tough question to answer since the Hortens work is much
lesser
known.
Certainly both Northrop and the Hortens foresaw a future where the
flying wing design would be a success in both the civilian and
military
worlds.
But during World War II the emphasis was on warplanes. In this regard
the Hortens were in the lead with the Ho IX jet fighter and proposed
Ho
XVIII jet bomber.
Northrop, meanwhile, cared more about promoting the "all-wing" designs
than their application to military purposes. The wartime XP-56 and
XP-79
fighters were not practical. And when Northrop finally did produce his
flying wing bombers (postwar) the USAF was not confident in either
design... they could not fulfill the strategic requirement of
carrying
atomic weapons.
The Hortens story, however, doesn't end in 1945. Recently
declassified
documents suggest that the Hortens were involved in secret US aircraft
developments of the late '40s to early '50s. These were the delta and
disc designs that may have led to some of the strange shapes in our
skies today.
Northrop was vindicated by the B-2 bomber. Someday maybe the Hortens
will be too...
DV-D
" Miss Devious riding Mischievious"
- future USN F-32 pilot