Looking for opinions re. the relevance/importance of the Horten Ho 229

The source of the idea that the Horten was a stealth aircraft is the oft-repeated ‘fact’ that the Horten would have been 30% (or 40%, or 80%, depending on who you ask) less visible to UK radar (but not anyone else’s).

For some reason (probably because it made for a better story) Northrop and/or National Geographic modelled it at great expense using ‘Battle of Britain’ period Chain Home frequencies (6 to 13m wavelengths), which later sources assumed to be contemporary. These were obsolete at the time of the Horten’s appearance, and had been long superseded by the AMES 7 GCI system, of a much higher frequency. I have just edited Wiki.

Was it in fact stealthy at all?

wiki claims that traces of ‘conducting material’ were found between the laminations by visiting Northrop-Grumman reps at Silver Hill

Wiki is wrong, surprise surprise. NASM’s restoration department extensively tested the Ho IX V3 that they have part of, using digital microscopy and sophisticated spectrometry and concluded that there is NO added carbon black or coal dust in the glue between the plywood layers. The black specks taht were assumed by Northrop “experts” to be carbon black turned out to be simply oxidized old wood.

I can’t find the link right now, though I have the material printed out, but it’s a chapter headed “Was It Stealthy?” in a full NASM report on the partial airplane.

Quite so. The point I was trying to make when posting the link and the extract from it was that that was what Horten THOUGHT might be the case. But of course the theory had not been tested when he wrote his comments..

As Aeronut alludes to – construction material is not necessarily going to give you a small RCS (Radar Cross Section).
The RAF conducted glider trials in 1940 from Christchurch/Worth Matravers to see if our CH radar units could detect wooden aircraft – they found that they could,although obviously it would have been more difficult to detect these aircraft at ultra low level.The form/shape of the aircraft has a huge effect on RCS – for example a Hawk trainer has an extremely small head on RCS which is why it is used to simulate exocets etc during practice attacks on RN Ships.

just for general interest…

In a time where experimental work was done either in the wind tunnel or by building a prototype, the Ho/Go was just the continuing line of a program or research into tail-less designs. Any ‘stealth’ arrtibutes are merely 80s affectations or a result of function- it may have had a lower radar return as it was made of wood, but those big intales are hardly ‘stealthy’.

Apparently from most directions except ‘head on’ the Vulcan was reasonably stealthy due to its blended wing / fuselage. This was accidental rather than intentional. If ‘Stealth’ had been understood at the time of the Vulcan was being designed they would have done something about those four radar reflecting Olympus 1st stage compressor blades.

The Mk.I Hurricane was largely a metal frame which would have reflected radar nicely. The radar waves would have ignored the fabric. However, those whirling propeller blades would have been highly reflective – twice so in the case of the Mosquito. OK, the very earliest Hurricanes had wooden blades – as indeed did the majority of the Mk.IIs etc.

As Reimar Horten wrote in 1950:

“…with the advent of radar, wood constructions already considered antique,
turned into something modern again. As reflection of electric waves on
metallic surfaces is good, such will be the image on the radar screen; on the
contrary, on wood surfaces, that reflection is little, these resulting barely
visible on the radar.”

There we go then. Mosquito, the first stealth bomber. Mark 1 Hurricane must have been near invisible too.

In a time where experimental work was done either in the wind tunnel or by building a prototype, the Ho/Go was just the continuing line of a program or research into tail-less designs. Any ‘stealth’ arrtibutes are merely 80s affectations or a result of function- it may have had a lower radar return as it was made of wood, but those big intales are hardly ‘stealthy’.

In that regard there are plenty of British and American designs of the same period that reached similar or further development before being discarded.

As Reimar Horten wrote in 1950:

“…with the advent of radar, wood constructions already considered antique,
turned into something modern again. As reflection of electric waves on
metallic surfaces is good, such will be the image on the radar screen; on the
contrary, on wood surfaces, that reflection is little, these resulting barely
visible on the radar.”

In a time where experimental work was done either in the wind tunnel or by building a prototype, the Ho/Go was just the continuing line of a program or research into tail-less designs. Any ‘stealth’ arrtibutes are merely 80s affectations or a result of function- it may have had a lower radar return as it was made of wood, but those big intales are hardly ‘stealthy’.

In that regard there are plenty of British and American designs of the same period that reached similar or further development before being discarded.

Some very interesting stuff there CH : )

Interesting material here: http://www.paperlessarchives.com/FreeTitles/HortenHo229.pdf

Agreed, Redvanner.

Does anyone know the source of wiki claims that traces of ‘conducting material’ were found between the laminations by visiting Northrop-Grumman reps at Silver Hill, who were there to get ideas for the B-2? There seems to be a lot of bull poo being passed off as fact around this aircraft.

My opinion is, that it was merely a prototype stage development, that could have made operational in about 2 years, which would have been in 1947. So wonder weapon? No. But a nice project that might have proved it´s worth or lack of it in the very late 1940s. Was it worth the effort? At that time, I do not think so. Were there any other wonder weapons waiting around the corner? No. Design studies or just plain initial drawings? Lots of them. But, all in all, quite useless. The only real fighter worth of any effort was -at that time- Focke-Wulf (Kurt Tank)´s Ta 152. Regarding the jet engines: BMW 003 was very weak, Jumo 004 was better in thrust, but both lacked reliability. And the one wanted for the second series of jetfighters, the HeS 011 did only prototype test stand runs. So all for nothing? You might think so, but there is a big but. Start thinking about it on the more personal level. The war was definitely lost by the time we are talking about, any non fanatical Nazi could see it. Those who had the power were desperately searching for any means to turn the tide, how unlikely it might be. So the designing offices of every marginally weapon related company said: We have the revolutionary wonder weapon, to be operational in …….. years, or months, or weeks. So they could do their work, producing paper tigers. What would have been the alternative? Grab a Mauser K 98, march to the next front, and (most likely) get killed at the first opportunity. Honestly, what would you have done under those circumstances? P.S.: The only project that might have had chances to be produced in the late 1940´s as it had several good ideas, was the Ta 183 design III. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Ta_183#/media/File:Ta183_Endversion_Modell_kl1.png

Although I know nothing of the internal workings and politics of the Third Reich towards the end of the war, from a technical development point of view it looks like there was a scramble to gain a contract for the next ‘wonder weapon’, the one at would snatch victory from the jaws etc.

There was nothing particularly new, it’s much more a series – a flurry – of hasty mock ups and prototypes based on internationally understood theories that had not been completely thought through – essentially an over – acceleration of the usual process that goes from thesis, through iterations of technical memo, design study, model testing, which could elsewhere take a decade or more. So a lot of things emerged which seemed ‘ahead of their time’, but which were imperfectly conceived and developed.

On the face of it this is the ‘bleedin obvious’, but perhaps the ‘so close to a Nazi victory through superior science’ believers need it spelled out.

The example now with the NASM is a larger “third” version designed by Gotha engineers after Gotha was picked by Goering to take over the concept for production. The examples that flew were the first unpowered glider, followed the next jet powered example that performed a few test flights over two weeks before crashing and killing the pilot in mid-Feb 1945. The surviving example was captured incomplete and without wings by American forces in April 1945. A pair of wings were found some distance away from the factory, and presumably they were a match or close.

According to the descriptions written by the NASM, the aircraft was only half complete when captured. So I am having doubts that it was ever complete enough to be test flown by either the British or the US, although the British studied the design to attempt to fit British jet engines into it. The conservation work at the NASM also performed lab analysis of samples from the layers of wood and glue and the descriptions of their tests only show decaying wood and adhesives with no charcoal or “stealth” materials present. I think that the “stealth” ideas written in the Horten memoirs in the ’80s were only to embellish the legacy.

Video gamer types insist that Northrop did nothing with flying wings until this German design was “stolen” and brought to the US. In reality I think it only affirmed the ideas already implemented by Northrop.

The aircraft that flew was an experimental design and a worthy exercise in aerodynamics. Had the prototype survived I am sure that the people at Farnborough would have gleaned some useful data from it. As stated above, they could not have produced a viable combat aircraft, due to lack of development funds, men and material.

Agreed that the Ho.229 never existed – I believe it should be either Ho.IX or Go.229.

As a jet – A Deathtrap ! – and as we have discussed before – it was never built for stealth,but more in the quest for aerodynamic efficiency.
Generally speaking any tailless jet was waiting for Fully Powered hydraulic flying controls and Computer controlled Flying Control Systems to make them safe(ish) to operate.
Also the Germans were at least 6 or 7 years away from having reliable jet engines,all of the German WW2 jet engines fell waaay short of being of production standards !

I think you’ve got a sensible approach. Ask just what there was about the design that presented clear advantages over the available alternatives – good luck with finding an answer. Ask what the limitations would be on flying and operating a tailless design without automatic stability.

Personally, the one question I have over the Horten is “Why?” Presented arguments are unconvincing. Hindsight helps, of course.

Well I’m no expert but some thoughts nonetheless. Firstly the bizarre notion that Germany had some quantum leap in aircraft design just around the corner that would have turned the tide of the air war. I have seen some FW twin boom design hailed as inspiration for the vampire, a back of a fag packet sketch that inspired a design that had already flown? There are loads of enthusiasts for this point of view who seem to fail to recognise that the quantum leap was called the Me 262 and any other of these wonder weapons were a distraction from that. Rant over.

Horten. A flying wing design and there I think anything in common with B2 ends. The idea that the Horten would have had any pretensions to what we now call stealth is laughable. To tie it to B2 and F117 is ridiculous. Had it appeared in action it would have meant less 262s and would have succumbed to the same rat catcher tactics, and shortage of fuel, spares and pilots.

When could this thing have got to squadrons in strength? Would the allies have been idle in the meantime? Google “Convair B36”. As an offensive aircraft would it have coped with meteors, vampires and P80s?