Best World War II Aircraft?

[syscom3]

A heavy bomber is a weapons system. It needs long range (duhhhhhh!!!), an adequate payload to make it worthwhile to use, defensive firepower and an extensive avioncs suite for offensive and defensive purposes.

If you've read the many threads in here about the B17/24/29 and Lanc, you will see that each bomber got progressively heavier and heavier as operation requirements changed.

The German bombers youre talking about were just starting points and they would get heavier and heavier just like their allied counterparts.

 

[davparlr]

The great circle distance from Germany to NY is approximately 3500 statue miles. The YB-49, with a similar configuration as the Horten, with 10000 lbs of weapons could not fly that distance. The Horten, with even earlier engines would not probably not do that good. There would be no way the Horten could make the round trip to NY with a 10000 bomb load and probably couldn't with no bomb load. Early jet engines were huge consumers of fuel. The YB-35, with PW 4350s, could possibly make the round trip with a bomb. A Ju390 with only the bomb and fuel could come close to a round trip. Maybe with one way flights could NY be attacked. Even today, the B-2 with much superior aerodynamics, construction and engines could make make the round trip, but probably not by much.

As for the Horten weight, when design is done, I suspect the weight would be significantly higher.

The Arado, at 18000 lbs and two engines could only go 960 mile with 1000 lbs of bombs. Even if we project this linearly (Four time the weight) you would only get 4000 lbs 4000 miles. And capability does not go up linearly with weight! A flying wing is very efficient but can't perform miracles. This is simplistic but applicable.

Proposing that Germany, who had a dismal record of long range bombers (the Condor was not a long range bomber but a patrol aircraft with bombs), could at the end of the war, generate an effective atomic bomber is stretching it. Now if they had started earlier like 42 with a supported dedicated effort, they may have succeded, and only with the slow prop jobs. The first strike may have succeded with surprise but the second strike success would be unrealistic.

 

[syscom3]

Didnt the early flying wing designs have stability issues? Ive heard one of the reasons the Northrup designs went by the wayside was for that very reason.

I suspect that without modern avioncs and flight computers, all of the flying wings from the 40's wouldn't have been able to perform any military missions. They might have been stable flying straight and true, but the moment they had to do some maneuvers, that's the end of it.

 

[davparlr]

Didnt the early flying wing designs have stability issues? Ive heard one of the reasons the Northrup designs went by the wayside was for that very reason.

I suspect that without modern avioncs and flight computers, all of the flying wings from the 40's wouldn't have been able to perform any military missions. They might have been stable flying straight and true, but the moment they had to do some maneuvers, that's the end of it.

There were some reported porposing of the flying wings. The Air Force cancelled the B-49 because of pitch instability, however Northrop had built a stabilizer to correct that. Flying wings are inherently sensitive in the pitch axis. Also they need to have some type of lateral stability. The first B-2 proposal I saw had small vertical stabilizers slanted over the exhaust ducts. Computerized flight controls eliminated the need for that. There were some strange sidelights to the cancellation. Northrop had been told by the Secretary of the Air Force that if he wanted a contract he had to get with Consolidated (builders of the B-36) and they would be co-manufacters of the plane. Northrop went to Consolidated and turned down their proposal saying they effectively were taking over the B-49. The Secretary of the Air Force then cancelled the B-49. Sadly and strangely, the Air Force came and cut up all the built B-49s. I think they were about 17 of them. Not one was saved. As a post script, when the Secretary of the Air Force left office, he went to work for Consolidated.

One B-49 did crash. It was piloted by Edwards, the man Edwards Air Force Base is named after.

I have flown the B-2 simulator and it flies very predictably, similar to the C-141 I use to fly. With computers, you just program it to fly the way you want.

 

[syscom3]

I'd say that given the state of the art for what was known about flying wing technology in the mid 40's, they were not going to be military ready.

Prototypes can fly but that doesnt mean they're operations ready or even flyable.

 

[davparlr]

I'd say that given the state of the art for what was known about flying wing technology in the mid 40's, they were not going to be military ready.

Prototypes can fly but that doesnt mean they're operations ready or even flyable.

The B-49 was definately flyable. It had received a production contract from the Air Force after several years of testing (the B-35, the prop version had been around for a while). In the years after the war, money was short and development time was expensive. Still, from what I have heard from the flight test, any issues were solvable. But without computers, it could have been tricky flying, like the premature F7U.

 

[delcyros]

The stability issue are only valid for Northtrop flying wing designs, not for Horten. The reason lies in the discovery of the bell shaped lift distribution by Reimer Walter back in 1937. The Ho-I actually had some latent instability but with the Ho-II the problem was fixed and the Ho-IIF was fully acrobatic. Subsequent designs like Ho-V, Ho-parabola and Ho-VII, finally the Ho-IX always featured the bell shaped lift distribution and therefore should be classified as stable. Horten wrote Northtrop a letter in the late 40´s, explaining the effect of stability bell shaped lift distribution but he was ignored. The Ho-IX V1 (the unpowered glider) made some extensive flight tests and proved to be stable (as did the Ho-VII). However, there was always some criticism in the RLM about the stability of Horten´s gliders and they always had to prove their concepts. Once in 1944, the Ho-VII V1 made hard turns in tree top altitude at Rechline with one engine turned off to prove the stability. So far none of Hortens flying wing designs (including those of Argentinia) had a latent "Trudelneigung".

 

[davparlr]

The stability issue are only valid for Northtrop flying wing designs, not for Horten. The reason lies in the discovery of the bell shaped lift distribution by Reimer Walter back in 1937. The Ho-I actually had some latent instability but with the Ho-II the problem was fixed and the Ho-IIF was fully acrobatic. Subsequent designs like Ho-V, Ho-parabola and Ho-VII, finally the Ho-IX always featured the bell shaped lift distribution and therefore should be classified as stable. Horten wrote Northtrop a letter in the late 40´s, explaining the effect of stability bell shaped lift distribution but he was ignored. The Ho-IX V1 (the unpowered glider) made some extensive flight tests and proved to be stable (as did the Ho-VII). However, there was always some criticism in the RLM about the stability of Horten´s gliders and they always had to prove their concepts. Once in 1944, the Ho-VII V1 made hard turns in tree top altitude at Rechline with one engine turned off to prove the stability. So far none of Hortens flying wing designs (including those of Argentinia) had a latent "Trudelneigung".

Actually the Horten designs did have some stability issues for weapons operation, which requires an increased level of stability over general flying. The Ho-IX displayed some Dutch Roll characteristics and some oscillations that he German AF said would need fixing for gunfire. These were thought to be solvable just like the B-35/49. It would have also required a vertical stablizer since flying in a crab (which may not be detectable) can cause some interesting flight situations. The B-2 handles this with computerized flight controls that automatically controls yaw. As for Northrop not understanding stability, he flew quite a variety of tailess vehicles with little mention on stability issue (N-1N, N-9M (which is still flying), XP-56 Black Bullet (which initially did have some yaw problems), MX-324/334 (rocket powered answer to Me-163 probably), JB-1 power bomb, JB-10 jet bomb, XP-79 Flyin Ram (which was lost on the initial test flight, though to be a trim tab failure). All of these were flown before the end of the war. This is quite a list of tailess designs. The H0-IX was never tested to the level of the B-35/49 due mainly to its crashing two hours after takeoff, so high speed stability with that airframe is strickly theoretical.

An interesting side note is that Walter Horten wanted to work for Northrop and Jack wanted him to come but was not able to have him come over. He told Walter to talk to USAFE but nothing else was heard. That is too bad. He would have helped Jack out enormously.

The Horten brothers are an interesting comparison to the Wright brothers. One brother was the theorectial leader with wild ideas of genius and the other was the level headed engineer. Only, the Wright brothers seem to get along a bit better.

 

[Bullockracing]

The only way that Germany would have any plane ready to deliver even one significant bombload to the continental US would be to start in 1935 with a strategic bomber program and a nuclear bomb project. Anything else would have been a waste, see the amount of bombs and bombers over Germany, which has a significantly smaller landmass. It would take a fleet of Horten bombers and a few thousand nuclear weapons (or at least the US would have to think there were) to knock the US out of the war.

That being said, my favorite designs of the entire war are the German ones.

 

[syscom3]

Bullock is right. Up through 1946, The US only had enough bomb grade fissionable material to build four bombs. And it took huge industrial size facilities to make it.

 

[Twitch]

The Ho 18 would have had the range to make the run to the east US coast. It was designed to carry a 4,400-lb payload not 10,000 lbs. as Davparlr is talking about. 7,400 miles was ample. Most assuredly the Me 264's 9,300 mile range was ample wasn't it? And remember this was on internal fuel. There were hardpoints on the craft for external tankage on most of these craft, the Ho 229 included.

At any rate making hip shot guesses wasn't what successful aero engineers did then or do now. It obvious that they calculated tankage and fuel consumption in regard to takeoff weight and payload carried to project a range sufficient to reach the east coast from Europe.

The Horten brothers were no jamokes who just fell off the turnip truck. They were designing and building flying machines since the late 20s. The Ho 229 which would have become the Go 229 was in development since 1934 in forerunner machines. The all wing concept was not an off the wall idea with no foundation. As Delcyros mentions the design was extensively tested and found suitable.

Lateral stability issues were going to be addressed but the war ended 1st. Whether the Ho 229 would have ended up with small vertical stabilizers is of no consequence. We must acknowledge that research and development phases of prototype aircraft address these type of issues and they are modified as needed. It is the nature of the whole process. It is 100% for sure the final Go 229 would have been as stable, serviceable craft. Any problems would have been solved. In fact the observed stability waver was at landing speeds. At high speed the ship was stable.

The point isn't whether the Amerika bomber could have been built before the end of the war. It couldn't. The whole deal is simply acknowledging what is possible or not. The Me 264 was ready for the call to commence production in 1942. I most certainly could have been in service by 1944. Of course we know many things intervened to change that, Hitler was one of those factors, which was often the case. Would 2 tons of bombs per plane have made significant inroads in damaging the American homeland? Of course not.
Would a dirty nuke?

As Bullockracing says they would have needed to commence a long range nuclear bomber project earlier. The Weimar Republic, long before Hitler, began a rocket program that reached fruition as the A-4 (V-2.) The A-9/A-10 were ready for construction. This was a 2-stage ICBM capable of reaching the eastern US. Given a couple of years it would have been in service. Had research into nuclear energy been authorized in the 20s, as rockets were, men like Einstein would have been involved in solving the puzzle before the Nazi ever became a factor in Germany.

We look at the actual history and what happened and are sometimes oblivious to the luck of our fate. Had Germany's tedious cordialness with Russia lasted a year longer and the D-Day assault was repulsed the war could have easily droned on a couple more years. With a late start against Germany the Sovs would have been much farther from Germany in 1945 and with a year of reorganization after a failed D-Day the Allies strategy would have been altered also.

It is amazing how fate, sychronicity and pure dumb luck decide things sometimes. Minor changes of a million things one way or the other would have had far-reaching consequnces in the war. Just fun to speculate!

 

[orcacomeback]

I think IL2

 

[lesofprimus]

U thought wrong....

 

[kiwimac]

FW-190 D series and the TA-152

 

[lesofprimus]

And in an example of perfectly bringing a topic back on track, kiwimac goes with a fighter aircraft as best WWII aircraft.... Could make for an intresting discussion, defending that one...

I can see why u would pick those 2 planes kiwi, but I cant overlook the contributions of other planes that impacted the war effort more....

 

[syscom3]

.........It was designed to carry a 4,400-lb payload not 10,000 lbs. as Davparlr is talking about. 7,400 miles was ample.

The nukes of that era weighed far in excess of 4400 lbs. Plus they were large devices that required big fat bomb bays. I dont think this "amerika bomber" would have the performance necessary to carry a very heavy bomb externally.

Would a dirty nuke?

In those days, uranium enriched to the point of being usable in a dirty bomb was to valuable to be wasted like that.

As Bullockracing says they would have needed to commence a long range nuclear bomber project earlier. The Weimar Republic, long before Hitler, began a rocket program that reached fruition as the A-4 (V-2.) The A-9/A-10 were ready for construction. This was a 2-stage ICBM capable of reaching the eastern US. Given a couple of years it would have been in service. Had research into nuclear energy been authorized in the 20s, as rockets were, men like Einstein would have been involved in solving the puzzle before the Nazi ever became a factor in Germany.

You cant rush technology. Even if development had started in the 20's, untill key metallurgical and guidance issues were resolved, it wasnt going to "fly".

 

[davparlr]

The Horten brothers were no jamokes who just fell off the turnip truck. They were designing and building flying machines since the late 20s. The Ho 229 which would have become the Go 229 was in development since 1934 in forerunner machines. The all wing concept was not an off the wall idea with no foundation. As Delcyros mentions the design was extensively tested and found suitable.

I hope this comment did not come about because I compared them to the Wright brothers. The Horten brothers were well ahead of their times and had great ideas. The Wright brothers were also well ahead of their times and implemented procedures that are still in use today in aerospace design. It is an honor to be a compared to the Wright brothers.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Horten Ho- Most Alien looking fighter

The Pancake didn't look that normal either.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And in an example of perfectly bringing a topic back on track, kiwimac goes with a fighter aircraft as best WWII aircraft.... Could make for an intresting discussion, defending that one...

I can see why u would pick those 2 planes kiwi, but I cant overlook the contributions of other planes that impacted the war effort more....

I agree with you and while I believe that the 190D and the 152 were the best fighters built, I go with the C-47.

 

[jhor9]

Best WW2 "PLANE." I would assume all around - yes this has been discussed before and its simple -

THE C-47!!!!

I would tend to agree with flyboy. It was right up at or near the top of the list. It was used for everything except combat, and logistics play a very strong part in the winning of a war.