Best World War II Aircraft?

[elmilitaro]

nice info.

[syscom3]

I thought you meant the amerika bomber had a conventional payload.

Still, while Germany had the resources to design the bomb, they didnt have the resources to build more than one for testing.

[davparlr]

Boy, has this thread really jumped. From the C-47 (which is probably the best aircraft of WWII and probably the best aircraft ever) to hypothetical aircraft (the Ju390 and the Me264 did fly, I believe) with hypothetical bombs. My comments:

First. The Manhattan project was huge! Many, many years. Lots and lots of dollars. A great amount of intellectual resources. Germany never committed, and maybe didn't have, the resources to build the A-Bomb in any kind of reasonable time.

Second. I doubt that any of the German aircraft mentioned could have bombed the US. Remember the first A-Bombs weighed about 10000 lbs. The Ju390 performance is based on a bomb load of 3968 lbs. Not quite the 10000 lbs needed. The Me 264, which was similar but lighter than the B-29 might have made a one way but probably not, especially against the jet winds. They may have launched one or two without being detected. But once the first on went off, no more unescorted bombers would have made it. The Horten would have been magical to the job, with any engines available to the Germans! The B-47 with six engines of superior design to any WWII engines could only go about 3800 miles with a 10000 lb bomb load. The YB-49 with a cleaner design (engines are not in pods) and six more powerful engines could only go 3200 miles with 10000 lbs. If you think the Horten is actually cleaner, remember the B-49 actually flew. The Horten would have had to use similar stabilizing fins to make it flyable. Also note that the B-36, which was designed for an intercontinental mission with an A-bomb by a country far more experienced in long range bombers, had six 3500 hp engines and weighed 370,000 lbs, over twice the weight of the Ju390.

[davparlr]

Seems there was some design of the Horten that buried six engines in the wing ala B-49. Still 10,000 lbs of bomb with that few lbs thrust and thirsty engines would not make the US.

[Twitch]

I reinterate, had the Weimar Republic pursued the nuclear goal with the verve and time given the aggregate rocket program they would have succeeded. Happily for the world they didn't.

The Me 264 had a 9,320 mile range with payload ample for reaching the eastern US and returning. The Ju 390's range was insufficient at 5,750 miles.

The Horten brothers realized that vertical stabs would probably assist lateral stability. They weren't lame. They stated trailing edge lateral control devices were planned. That was not a big deal in the developmental phase of an aircraft project either. NO plane is produced in final flying form from blueprint to the runway. That's what trials are for to make modifications and improvements after input from the pilot and flight engineers.

The grotesque B-36 is no yardstick to measure what is required to achieve long range in a bomber. There is and always has been several paths to any one goal.

The Horten P.18A used 6 engines, was 35 tons loaded and had a projected range of 7,457 miles while the P.18B used 4 turbines and would have a range of 6,835 miles. They were to be built out of composite materials.

Why does it seen that to achieve long range one must build a flying turd like the B-36? There are other ways to do it with grace an finesse. The B-36A weighed 212,800 lbs. loaded and 311,000 lbs. maximum. The B-36H weighed 370,000 in 1956.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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".

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.