Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Might you know where I could get a copy of this photo? Can't find it in any of my books.
Then follow up with this thread to come full circle: www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/german-flying-wings-15300.htmlhttp://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-requests/horton-brothers-flying-wings-3618.html
Take a look at that.
Great pictures in #9 and #10. And the guy who posted them goes on about the story.
I know Shepelev and Ottens identified the Avon as the engine suggested for use with the Ho 229 V2, but I think this is unlikely. For one they identified the engine as a centrifguagl type, which the Avon is not.
Also, the Avon first ran in 1946 on the test bench, so would be unlikely to be considered as a replacement engine for a highly experimental captured aircraft.
With a bomber you may get by with a design that is "stable". With fighters you want the ability to switch back and forth. You want a fighter that is stable when you want it to be and unstable when you are trying to get it to change direction in a hurry, followed by a return to stable very quickly. Fighters have to able to return to a somewhat stable flight condition AFTER some rather gross changes in pitch and yaw. IF the wing/control system becomes ineffective past certain limits of angle of attack or yaw you may loose the aircraft. Bombers/transports seldom (if ever) operate at the angles of attack or yaw that fighters will. And fighters have to be careful with yaw. That is what caused the loss of some of the early F-100s, among others.
And the V2 flew with different, smaller, lower powered engines than the V3 was equipped with.
Nope, still no pictures of the V2 wreckage. I'm sorry, despite the story, I still think it unlikely that it was scraped up and shipped to England. A gut feeling brought on by the myths and lies surrounding this futuristic aircraft.
Turning a 'flying wing' was one of the fundamental aerodynamic problems that the Hortens struggled with. They adopted the rather inelegant solution of drag rudders which worked, after a fashion.
Cheers
Steve
With a bomber you may get by with a design that is "stable". With fighters you want the ability to switch back and forth. You want a fighter that is stable when you want it to be and unstable when you are trying to get it to change direction in a hurry, followed by a return to stable very quickly. Fighters have to able to return to a somewhat stable flight condition AFTER some rather gross changes in pitch and yaw. IF the wing/control system becomes ineffective past certain limits of angle of attack or yaw you may loose the aircraft. Bombers/transports seldom (if ever) operate at the angles of attack or yaw that fighters will. And fighters have to be careful with yaw. That is what caused the loss of some of the early F-100s, among others.
Actually the Germans did try out a RAM on subs. From wikiI believe that the weather-related problems of the B-2 are because of the radar-absorbent coating. The Germans are unlikely to have had RAM, although they probably had the theoretical knowledge to make them (so did the British, the Americans, the Japanese, the Russians, the Italians, ....)
Just on the subject of stealth, I understand the Gotha was suppose to be built with this in mind?
I wonder how well it would have stood up to the environment, especially when you read this from 1997 - was the B-2 also a delicate creature that didn't like moisture?
Considering how long it took to start up, taxi out, run up, take off, join up, find the bombers and join up again, it wasn't a really big issue.