Go-229

• Jul 1, 2004

• #21

GermansRGeniuses

Tech Sergeant

2,031

4

Dec 26, 2003

www.barryboys.co.uk

Nah, airbrakes, strong landing gear, good low speed flight characteristics and flaps that are almost 90 degrees downward for extra drag and slowness. In other words, although it was not that great in the visibility department, it could land flying VERY slow. (Slow=not too much engine power=little smoke=sssssshhhh, quiet - great for hiding from P-47s and P-51s)

 

• Jul 2, 2004

• Thread starter
• #22

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

The visibility probably would have been better than the picture shows. After all you are right at the front.

 

• Jul 2, 2004

• #23

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

i just thought that if you pitch your nose up on landing (this was before i realised how slowly it landed) the "tail" could hit the ground when you land......................

 

• Jul 5, 2004

• #24

G

Gemhorse

Senior Airman

622

26

Mar 6, 2004

New Zealand

No, in actual fact it was one of the most redeeming features...it originally had 4 wheels for landing, then they went to the tri-cycle set-up.They put on an enlarged front wheel to assist take-off, with the projected heavy ordinance loads, 2x2,205 lb bombs or 2x 275 Imp gal. fuel tanks - As I stated on page one, it's take-off was short, 500 yds @ 95 mph, and they had a complex set-up of spoilers to give excellent control at ALL speeds...

 

• Nov 6, 2005

• #25

H

HealzDevo

Staff Sergeant

1,358

24

Oct 26, 2004

Queensland

I still question the flight characteristics being that good. If the B-2 and the US Flying Wing were the same design, why were they considered to have so many control problems if this didn't? In the end I think that is what had delayed its entry into service. The fact that it might not have been too good on control. I don't know however, of whether there are any actual flying models which have tested this however. Also I don't know of any reports by the German Pilots about their test flights, but feel free to post any you do have.

 

• Nov 6, 2005

• #26

FLYBOYJ

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

28,097

8,751

Apr 9, 2005

Colorado, USA

Are you talking about the B-35/ B-49 having control probelms?

 

• Nov 7, 2005

• #27

Parmigiano

Senior Airman

691

8

Aug 2, 2005

Campospinoso (PV), Italy

.. Just a little point about engines: it was trhe other way around.

The HoIX-Go229 frame was designed for the BMW 003, then when the Jumo 004 were available with more thrust they decided to fit the latter, that was of bigger diameter and required some redesign to fit.

The program was delayed also because the prototype crashed for engine cut-off during landing approach after an apparently promising maiden flight. The other prototypes were still under construction, one of them is the one at Smithsonian.