wheelsup_cavu
1st Sergeant
Very cool VB. 
Wheels
Wheels
Any rational purpose for Ho-229?
- Thread starter delcyros
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Did the only powered proto crash on its 3rd flight? I wonder how far they got in the handling tests in 2 or 3 flights, especially with so radical airframe.
Juha
Shortround6
Major General
The Ho229 has a much, much lower "wing" loading than the Me 262 or, indeed, many piston powered fighters. However even on a Piston powered plane not every "square foot" of wing area provides the same amount of lift and on flying wings this may be especially true. I would say that the H0 229 did enjoy a very good overall lift to weight ratio though.
But lift to weight ratio is only one aspect of "agile" handling. Others are the roll rate or roll acceleration as this helps determine how fast a plane can change direction in the lateral plane (relative to the plane) and the control authority of the control surfaces. It is here that the flying may (or may not) have some problems. Early Spitfires had too much control authority from the elevators (they were too effective) making the airplane difficult to fly at the limits.
Flying wings (or tailless) aircraft have problems at high angles of attack because they have to use large areas of the wing (relatively speaking) as elevons which are pitched up relative to the wing which not only decreases lift but creates a powerful "down" force ( or outward force if in a banked turn). This downward force in much greater than the down force created by normal elevators with their much longer moment arm.
The Ho 229 may have been more agile than many conventional planes (it's basic wing loading was around that of a Hawker Hurricane II) but the wing loading alone is not enough to say one way or another and with limited test flying and without knowing what the test pilot was comparing it to we are doing a lot of speculating.
I believe one of the British 4 engine bombers was supposed to have good handling or maneuverability, what was unsaid was that was in comparison to other 4 engine bombers, not against fighters
But lift to weight ratio is only one aspect of "agile" handling. Others are the roll rate or roll acceleration as this helps determine how fast a plane can change direction in the lateral plane (relative to the plane) and the control authority of the control surfaces. It is here that the flying may (or may not) have some problems. Early Spitfires had too much control authority from the elevators (they were too effective) making the airplane difficult to fly at the limits.
Flying wings (or tailless) aircraft have problems at high angles of attack because they have to use large areas of the wing (relatively speaking) as elevons which are pitched up relative to the wing which not only decreases lift but creates a powerful "down" force ( or outward force if in a banked turn). This downward force in much greater than the down force created by normal elevators with their much longer moment arm.
The Ho 229 may have been more agile than many conventional planes (it's basic wing loading was around that of a Hawker Hurricane II) but the wing loading alone is not enough to say one way or another and with limited test flying and without knowing what the test pilot was comparing it to we are doing a lot of speculating.
I believe one of the British 4 engine bombers was supposed to have good handling or maneuverability, what was unsaid was that was in comparison to other 4 engine bombers, not against fighters
I believe one of the British 4 engine bombers was supposed to have good handling or maneuverability, what was unsaid was that was in comparison to other 4 engine bombers, not against fighters
Much later the Avro Vulcan really was amazingly nimble for such a large aeroplane.
As far as the Ho 229 goes I don't think any practical opinion on its handling can de drawn from three powered flights, the third of which was curtailed by an engine fire (surprise, surprise, a Jumo 004) and fatal accident.
Cheers
Steve
Gixxerman
Senior Airman
I've seen the Northrop documentary, it only talks about a 20% improvement in detection due to the 'stealth' characteristics of the Ho229.
They didn't know or think about reducing the RCS of the cockpit area and those jet intakes are about as unstealthy as possible.
Given that the V1 attacks had resulted in the British SE coastline bristling with AAA (with proximity fusing) from mid '44 to wars end in '45 I really think that the notion of the Ho229 being almost invulnerable is absurd.
Then there is the significant matter of where the skilled pilots to come from - capable of flying this then leading edge design at such imagined low-levels - 50ft (just over 15meters)!?
Given that this was still an utterly unproven aircraft as the only other powered prototype example crashed and killed its pilot after a short flight, I think the claims so often made about the Ho229 are very silly.
Yes it's an interesting design, but it is one so obviously born of complete desperation, there was no proper flight test program, no tactics for its use and no trained crew available to fly it.
It's the Me262 story all over again (with far less development time), even if they had gotten some numbers in service they'd have been cut to pieces by the allied superior numbers....and I'd take my chances with AAA proximity fuses over a plane with 80% of the RCS of a conventional fighter in 1945 on the British coast any day of the week, quite happily.
I would be very interested to see the plane restored I'm glad this looks like its happening.
There's a more interesting 'stealth' story from WW2 and it has nothing to do with the Horten, but then stealth matting on U-boat snorkel masts doesn't sound quite as glamorous as ludicrous titles such as 'Hitler's Stealth Fighter....looks like a bit like a B2, almost', eh?
Last edited:
There was an engine failure and fire. On only the third flight I wonder if there was a procedure for a single engine landing. Observers thought that Ziller tried to restart the engine before flying around in circles, spiralling to the ground for reasons never known.
I agree with Gixxerman above. Ridiculous claims are made for the Ho 229 which was at best an experimental aircraft. To describe it as a stealth fighter is also a misleading claim. It did inadvertently have a somewhat reduced radar profile but was not in any way stealthy in a modern sense. As well as its vulnerability to British AAA, contemporary British defensive radar would still have 'seen' it coming. At night British radar equipped night fighters could also have 'seen' it once vectored within range by British GCI radar.
That is not my definition of stealth.
Cheers
Steve
@stona: sorry to disturb your crusade against German technology but many years ago before the internet I read a book where the accident report of that crash was included. If my memory is correct there was no engine fire but a seized turbine shaft which caused fumes which made the pilot unconscious. The investigation showed a blocked oil feed caused by sabotage.
OT: up to now I owned cars from Germany, Italy, Britain and Japan. Guess which were the worst, sorry could not resist
cimmex
I don't have a crusade against German technology, in fact I've been driving German cars for the last twenty years precisely because it is so good.
I do have a crusade against the mythologizing of untested and unproven technology, wherever it originates.
I also find post war claims about various technology, assigning properties and capabilities which were neither planned nor present in it annoying.
The Ho 229 was never planned as a stealth aeroplane, the concept didn't exist in the mid 1940s. It was in fact a pretty crude tubular frame combined with a lot of wooden structure and skinning and a couple of unreliable engines. There was nothing advanced about its construction, most techniques were well known pre-war.
Aerodynamically it was advanced and reflected the lead that German aerodynamicists had established in this field during the late 1920s and early 1930s. The Horten design owes much to developments in gliders at the 'Wasserkuppe' which in the 1930s was arguably the best gliding school in the world. It is particularly a derivative of Alexander Lippisch's tail less delta designs. Lippisch's first tail less delta glider flew at the hands of the famous Gunther Groenhoff on 2nd August 1930, a long time before radar existed.
As an interesting aside this flight was witnessed by Beverley Shenstone who had recently come to the Wasserkuppe from Junkers at Dessau. He would maintain a life long friendship with Lippisch. He was also to have an important influence on the design of the Spitfire.
The Ho 229 had a reduced radar profile due to a fortuitous shape and the absence of a fin and propellers.
I don't see any way that the Ho 229 could have been a service aeroplane in less than two or three years and given the record of the German aviation industry and Ministry with other types, probably considerably longer. It's utterly irrelevant in that sense, just like some other 'wonder weapons, German atomic bombs and anti-gravity machines, things so beloved of bad documentary film makers.
Claims made much later (by Reimar Horten IIRC) should be put into the context of a simple question. Why was he making such claims now, as stealth technology was becoming a serious idea, having singularly failed to do so previously?
I've read accounts of the Ho 229 crash too. Observers reported smoke rather than flames so the term 'engine fire' is open to interpretation. It was also suspected, but never proven, that Ziller was overcome by fumes. Since the aircraft was completely destroyed and Ziller was never able to tell anyone what had happened, it is pure conjecture. The facts are that having made what were interpreted as efforts to restart the failed engine the aircraft flew in circles until it hit the ground. Precisely why it did that is, as I said, something we'll never know.
Cheers
Steve
Edit. Groenhoff was killed in an accident in 1932. His book 'Ich Fliege mit und ohne Motor' may still be around in German.
Lippisch with his delta glider, Groenhoff in the cockpit.
Last edited:
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I do not believe anybody is discounting German Technology at the time.
Walter Rosler (Ground Crew Chief) was the one that came up with the fumes theory and he based on that on the observation of Ziller circling and not trying to bail out. He had seen this exact same thing while dogfighting an American Spitfire whose pilot was either dead or knocked out.
From what's stated in the book, another reason for the crash was an emergency feature built into the aircraft. The engine that stopped working was the same engine that powered the hydraulic system. The emergency compressed air system kicked in and lowered the flaps and landing gear thus causing a tremendous amount of drag.
Walter Rosler (Ground Crew Chief) was the one that came up with the fumes theory and he based on that on the observation of Ziller circling and not trying to bail out. He had seen this exact same thing while dogfighting an American Spitfire whose pilot was either dead or knocked out.
From what's stated in the book, another reason for the crash was an emergency feature built into the aircraft. The engine that stopped working was the same engine that powered the hydraulic system. The emergency compressed air system kicked in and lowered the flaps and landing gear thus causing a tremendous amount of drag.
This is he sort of thing that annoys me, admittedly from Fox News.
"Northrop Grumman Corp. spent its own time and money using the original German blueprints to replicate the wood-and-steel-tube bomber, right down to its unique metallic glue and paint, at its facility in El Segundo, Calif."
No they did not. They built a wooden mock up, not a replica.
Nor did they use original glues and lacquers, though they did attempt to replicate the properties of some of the original materials. What they built was a model, a very good one, but a model nonetheless. The radar absorbence of the materials used is based on experiments with an original nose cone.
"Using radar of the same type and frequency used by British coastal defenses in World War II, the engineers found that an Ho 229, flying a few dozen feet above the English Channel, would indeed have been "invisible" to the Royal Air Force — an advantage that arrived too late for the Nazis to exploit."
Apart from the other nonsense the idea of flying a machine like the Ho 229 'a few dozen feet above the English Channel' would be enough to turn an experienced Luftwaffe pilot (if they could find one) grey.
It would, flown like that have been difficult to see, not invisible.
Cheers
Steve
"Northrop Grumman Corp. spent its own time and money using the original German blueprints to replicate the wood-and-steel-tube bomber, right down to its unique metallic glue and paint, at its facility in El Segundo, Calif."
No they did not. They built a wooden mock up, not a replica.
Nor did they use original glues and lacquers, though they did attempt to replicate the properties of some of the original materials. What they built was a model, a very good one, but a model nonetheless. The radar absorbence of the materials used is based on experiments with an original nose cone.
"Using radar of the same type and frequency used by British coastal defenses in World War II, the engineers found that an Ho 229, flying a few dozen feet above the English Channel, would indeed have been "invisible" to the Royal Air Force — an advantage that arrived too late for the Nazis to exploit."
Apart from the other nonsense the idea of flying a machine like the Ho 229 'a few dozen feet above the English Channel' would be enough to turn an experienced Luftwaffe pilot (if they could find one) grey.
It would, flown like that have been difficult to see, not invisible.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Might also point out that the Hortons didn't just pull the Ho229 out of thin air, they were masters of the "flying wing" design. They had designed and built powered as well as non-powered wings for years.
Granted, the Ho229 was the Horton's first jet powered design and it was the heaviest, but there's no reason to cast doubt on their abilities or the potential of the aircraft's performance. This was certainly not a weapon born out of desperation, as they has been working on this for years.
The Ho229 did prove to be a good handling design with it's only detraction being the tendancy to drift in level flight, as any tailless aircraft will do. The main problem would be the engines and we all know the ongoing story behind the jet engine's shortcomings that plagued all of Germany's jet powered aircraft of the time.
I might point out that just because a German design was not conventional for the time, was it a "wonder weapon" born of desperation. The Me262 was designed in the 1930's, the He280 was designed in the 1930's. The Hortons and Dr. Lippisch had been working with tailless designs long before the war. Many innovations and hardware designs had been ongoing projects before the war. I don't see anybody screaming desperation at the unconventional designs of the Allies when those designs are discussed.
If we follow that line of thought, then we could even suggest that the American nuclear weapons were "wonder weapons" born of desperation, since they were limited in number, crude and untried before on the battlefield. So then, could we say that the radio controlled pilotless American bombers deployed were "wonder weapons" born out of desperation?
The V-2 program fall into that heading sometimes as does the V-1 and yet these weapons are all around us today in the form of ICBMs and cruise-missiles and let's look at the B-2 bomber. I've seen people even refer to the German's guided air-to-air/air-to-surface missiles called "wonder weapons"...really?
Granted, some of the German designs and proposals were highly questionable and some were just downright stupid, but there were some that not only held promise, but were heralds of things to come.
It really disappoints me when emerging technology is labelled in relation to the origin...if it's Allied, it's a great technical leap, if it's German, it's a desperate grasp. And if anyone backs the German technology, they run the risk of being called a Nazi sympathizer and all sorts of nonsense.
Bottom line, if Germany had the luxury of time, raw materials and political co-operation, these "last minute" weapons would not have been rushed through at the end...they would have been towards the beginning.
Granted, the Ho229 was the Horton's first jet powered design and it was the heaviest, but there's no reason to cast doubt on their abilities or the potential of the aircraft's performance. This was certainly not a weapon born out of desperation, as they has been working on this for years.
The Ho229 did prove to be a good handling design with it's only detraction being the tendancy to drift in level flight, as any tailless aircraft will do. The main problem would be the engines and we all know the ongoing story behind the jet engine's shortcomings that plagued all of Germany's jet powered aircraft of the time.
I might point out that just because a German design was not conventional for the time, was it a "wonder weapon" born of desperation. The Me262 was designed in the 1930's, the He280 was designed in the 1930's. The Hortons and Dr. Lippisch had been working with tailless designs long before the war. Many innovations and hardware designs had been ongoing projects before the war. I don't see anybody screaming desperation at the unconventional designs of the Allies when those designs are discussed.
If we follow that line of thought, then we could even suggest that the American nuclear weapons were "wonder weapons" born of desperation, since they were limited in number, crude and untried before on the battlefield. So then, could we say that the radio controlled pilotless American bombers deployed were "wonder weapons" born out of desperation?
The V-2 program fall into that heading sometimes as does the V-1 and yet these weapons are all around us today in the form of ICBMs and cruise-missiles and let's look at the B-2 bomber. I've seen people even refer to the German's guided air-to-air/air-to-surface missiles called "wonder weapons"...really?
Granted, some of the German designs and proposals were highly questionable and some were just downright stupid, but there were some that not only held promise, but were heralds of things to come.
It really disappoints me when emerging technology is labelled in relation to the origin...if it's Allied, it's a great technical leap, if it's German, it's a desperate grasp. And if anyone backs the German technology, they run the risk of being called a Nazi sympathizer and all sorts of nonsense.
Bottom line, if Germany had the luxury of time, raw materials and political co-operation, these "last minute" weapons would not have been rushed through at the end...they would have been towards the beginning.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I think it would be great if somebody actually built a replica for flight testing.
I think that such weapons are sometimes described as desperate measures simply because of the war situation when they were being rushed into service. The bottom line is that Germany was losing the war and losing it fast. It was the German people themselves who were led to expect wonder weapons to change the course of the war, and that is the context in which they should be understood.
I remember an interview with an ex-German soldier who found himself at the tender age of 16 in a PoW cage in Germany. He described feeling a breeze on his face and came to the completely illogical conclusion that this must be the remnants of the blast from some as yet unknown wonder weapon, and that maybe all was not lost after all. This also demonstrates the insidious effects of growing up in, and knowing nothing but, a state like Nazi Germany.
I would not describe Germany's jet or rocket aircraft program as 'desperate'. I would describe the efforts to force barely tested or tried designs into service as acts of desperation. The leap from an unpowered, tail less, delta glider to an operational jet powered fighter bomber is enormous. The Germans were trying to bridge this in a matter of two or three years. That is desperation. The fact that they actually got a prototype into the air for about two hours before it finally crashed is what should amaze us, not that ultimately it was a failure. It was a remarkable achievement, but it was never going to change the course of the war, no matter what Fox News might think.
I would certainly exclude the Me 262, but aircraft like the Ba 349 or Fi 103 R would never have been considered had Germany been winning the war. The Me 163 and He 162 are border line. In that sense attempts to develop and use them were acts of desperation. Surely any weapon system in which the human operator is considered disposable, certainly in our culture, can only be born of desperation? No such devices were ever contemplated by the allies, though some might have felt like it. You wouldn't catch me under the Tirpitz in a midget submarine!
The allies had a jet fighter in the Meteor but they never really introduced it, and kept it well out of harm's way when they sort of did, because they didn't need to.
Cheers
Steve
I remember an interview with an ex-German soldier who found himself at the tender age of 16 in a PoW cage in Germany. He described feeling a breeze on his face and came to the completely illogical conclusion that this must be the remnants of the blast from some as yet unknown wonder weapon, and that maybe all was not lost after all. This also demonstrates the insidious effects of growing up in, and knowing nothing but, a state like Nazi Germany.
I would not describe Germany's jet or rocket aircraft program as 'desperate'. I would describe the efforts to force barely tested or tried designs into service as acts of desperation. The leap from an unpowered, tail less, delta glider to an operational jet powered fighter bomber is enormous. The Germans were trying to bridge this in a matter of two or three years. That is desperation. The fact that they actually got a prototype into the air for about two hours before it finally crashed is what should amaze us, not that ultimately it was a failure. It was a remarkable achievement, but it was never going to change the course of the war, no matter what Fox News might think.
I would certainly exclude the Me 262, but aircraft like the Ba 349 or Fi 103 R would never have been considered had Germany been winning the war. The Me 163 and He 162 are border line. In that sense attempts to develop and use them were acts of desperation. Surely any weapon system in which the human operator is considered disposable, certainly in our culture, can only be born of desperation? No such devices were ever contemplated by the allies, though some might have felt like it. You wouldn't catch me under the Tirpitz in a midget submarine!
The allies had a jet fighter in the Meteor but they never really introduced it, and kept it well out of harm's way when they sort of did, because they didn't need to.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
l'Omnivore Sobriquet
Airman 1st Class
The Ho-229 was certainly not an unproven design.
They had an unpowered full-scale 'model' of it, close to identical in every way, which they flew, and tested right. I can't think of any better tool of simulation, as we would speak of today.
It came at the end of a rather long line of similar designs too, radical also, sometimes indeed, yet similar always.
The Horten Company was a Liliputian affair ("Sonderkommando 9" IIRC), so expecting them to produce a finely tuned operational fighter-bomber is a bit too much, simply. I like the story though, i'm an aviation enthousiast after all.
They had an unpowered full-scale 'model' of it, close to identical in every way, which they flew, and tested right. I can't think of any better tool of simulation, as we would speak of today.
It came at the end of a rather long line of similar designs too, radical also, sometimes indeed, yet similar always.
The Horten Company was a Liliputian affair ("Sonderkommando 9" IIRC), so expecting them to produce a finely tuned operational fighter-bomber is a bit too much, simply. I like the story though, i'm an aviation enthousiast after all.
They had been developing the design privately since 1930. Others had been working on similar ideas.
A full scale, unpowered model is still a huge leap to a jet powered fighter bomber. That's my point. I presume you mean the H IX V1 which first flew, towed by an He 111 on March 5th 1944. The fact that it only took nine months to get from that to the first flight of a powered prototype (on 18th December) is remarkable. They were still a long way from a service version, even given the corners being routinely cut in German aviation by this time.
This is reminiscent of the 'just do this or that' that is frequently suggested for other types without any understanding of how difficult 'this or that' might be. It took years for all sides to sufficiently develop far more conventional aircraft to a point where they could enter service.
Cheers
Steve.
I'd think that almost anything (especially a single aircraft) flying at a few dozen feet across the channel would be almost invisible in amongst the ground clutter.
wuzak
Captain
In his documentary on the Operation Jericho raid, Martin Shaw and his pilot follow the path that the raiders took, including flying at approximately the same height over the Channel as the Mossies did in 1944. It was his claim that the French Air Traffic Control were unable to see them on radar.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAlaPEfcX2Q
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAlaPEfcX2Q
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
