Ta183 vs Vampire

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by lingo

As we are now discussing the B-2 Spirit has anyone heard of the possible employment of electro-gravitics in this aircraft? Some years ago a distinguished physicist speculated the power of the installed engines were inadequate to meet the enormous range claimed for the type without it.

Mmmm, that would explain why I felt so much lighter and my belt buckle would stick to the car when I left work! Just kidding. The B-2 got its great range and payload from excellent aerodynamics and efficient engines.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by davparlr

It doesn’t matter. I would bet that there is almost zero Ho-229 data that went into the B-2. It certainly wasn’t any input into the wing or control surface design. The B-2 wing and control surfaces did not look at all like the Ho-229. It was designed for stealth and performance, not stability. The higher drag bell shaped lift distribution was not needed or desired here. Stability was handled by quad-redundant computers. It wasn’t aerodynamics; thousands of man-hours were put in curvature design to ensure that the radar reflecting nature, fit, and aerodynamic performance were optimized, and, computer driven manufacturing techniques were required. Nothing there was useful from the Ho-229. It wasn’t the inlet and exhaust design. Highly complex and advanced analysis was required for aero-performance and signature suppression. How about structure and manufacturing? No, the B-2 is primarily composite structure, which has zero commonality with the welded steel and wood construction of the Ho-229. Avionics/electrical, no way. Hydraulics, no way. Fuel systems, nope. How about the flight control system? No way. The B-2 has electrical activated hydraulic flight control system driven by computers. Cockpit, nope B-2 had a two man cockpit with ejection seats and special windshield. Weapons systems, mmm, no machine guns on the B-2. I cannot think of a single subsystem that benefited from any examination of the Ho-229. Wait, maybe the cooling of the wing section aft exhaust exits contributed. Probably not.

If anything was used it was the B-49. But again, I doubt if anything was actually used because of the above items applied here, too. It is interesting that the B-2 has the exact wingspan of the B-49.

Saying that the B-2 engineers benefited from examining the data from the Ho-229 is equivalent to Airbus 380 engineer getting useful data from examining a DC-3. No, I am sure the group did not expect to learn anything and went just to see an historic aircraft, on government funds.

What do you think they learned and used?

Did you design the B-2 davparlr ? No. So how the heck can you be making all those claims ?

Fact is that before the B-2 ever even hit the drawing board in the early 1980's Northrop sent out people to study the Ho-229. Now why the heck did they do that if not to learn something ???

[GrauGeist]

Jack Northrop was interested in the Horton brother's gliders and wing designs in the 30's, but was designing (and flying) his own wings by '39-'40...

If anything, the B-2 borrowed from Northrop's B-35 and B-49 design & research. If you compare the Ho229's design and features to any of Jack's designs, you'll see that about the only thing they have in common, is thier overall shape.

[Soren]

I dont believe any of us know the B-2 well enough to conclude wether or not features from the Go-229 were added into the design.

[Graeme]

Did Northrop or the Hortens ever visit Australia?

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

I dont believe any of us know the B-2 well enough to conclude wether or not features from the Go-229 were added into the design.

I'll step up and say I do. I've worked with and met some of the people who designed the aircraft and I could tell you while there was "inspirational" considerations, the B-2 design was based on research and other test vehicles developed by Northrop in the 70s. IMO it was in the back of their minds knowing that the ultimate goal, an intercontinental stealth bomber was probably best configured with a flying wing and I'm sure they had not only the Horten Brothers on their minds, but also earlier Northrop products. Soren, I'll state here that when the B-2 started, it was on a "clean piece of paper."

BTW - the Lockheed/ Rockwell team that lost the ATB competition allegedly was also a flying wing, but it had a V tail.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by delcyros

Hi Daveparl,
You point to several cases, which I would like to respond to.
If Northrop tried to get Walter Horten, then he tried to get the wrong part of the brothers. Walter was an organizer but not with the aerodynamic and scientific background. That was Reimer, whom I quoted above.
ut I think You don´t recognize the effort undertaken by Horten with regard to stability effects of large aspect flying wings with bell shaped lift distribution. That´s somehting, Jack never tried on his designs. I really am convinced that this would be an aspect, where Northrop´s flying wing designs could benefit.

I do not know if it was Walter or Reimer. I assumed it was Walter since Reimer went to Argentina. But I did read somewhere where Northrop tried very hard to hire one of them but was fustrated by red tape. I think Northrop was very aware of the Horten's work and was impressed.

Historical evidence is actually not confirming Your statement here. First of all, the XP-56 and the MX-324 are not flying wings, but tailless aircraft.
That are at best five powered, flying wings or tailless and powered aircraft in the air until may 45.

I disagree. The aerodynamics, certainly pitch and roll effects, of these configurations is the same as a flying wing only Northrop was wise enough to install a vertical stabilizer. I think they contributed significant data on high speed flying wing operations.

The powered flying wing list for the Horten brother, however includes twice that many planes, not counting the gliders, all of them were true flying wings:

I) Ho-IId -1938 -Walter Micron powered flying wing.
0) Ho-Va- failed testplane 1937
II) Ho-Vb- twin engined flying wing 1940
II) Ho-IIId - single engined flying wing, called "Butterfliege" 1943
IV) Ho-IIIe -single engined flying wing, VW-engine driven, 1944 -pre production model of a small series from V&VI) 50 Ho-IIIe to be manufactured by Klemm in 1945. Two of them were delivered until may 45.
VII) Ho-Vc -completely rebuild Ho-Vb to a different design, 1942
VIII) Ho-VII V1: twin engined two seater trainer, 1944. 20 planes were to be manufactured by Peschke company at Minden. The V-2 and V-3 were finished by may 1945 but not flown.
IX) Ho-IXV2: twin engined jet fighter, 1945. 20 preproduction models were at different stages of construction by Gotha company with the Go-229V3 beeing almost complete (this one survived in Silver Hill).
X) Ho-XII: single engined two seater. Flown in 1945.

Judging from this list, it appears to me unreasonable to claim that Jack Northrop had more experience bringing powered flying wings into the air than the Horten brothers. Both were pioneers, indeed but Northrop only catched up after may 1945.

I did not include the the Ho II and the Ho III since they were basically powered gliders, thus very slow, and probably did not add any powered flight knowledge above that of a glider.

I did not include the Vc because it is basically a rebuilt Vb. But it is a worthy comment.

Very few VII were built, one source said only one, which did not fly very much before the end of the war and probably did not add much to Horten’s flying wing knowledge.

I stand by my post.

[davparlr]

[QUOTE=Soren;520786]Did you design the B-2 davparlr ? No. So how the heck can you be making all those claims ?

Your joking right?

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I'll step up and say I do. I've worked with and met some of the people who designed the aircraft and I could tell you while there was "inspirational" considerations, the B-2 design was based on research and other test vehicles developed by Northrop in the 70s. IMO it was in the back of their minds knowing that the ultimate goal, an intercontinental stealth bomber was probably best configured with a flying wing and I'm sure they had not only the Horten Brothers on their minds, but also earlier Northrop products. Soren, I'll state here that when the B-2 started, it was on a "clean piece of paper."

BTW - the Lockheed/ Rockwell team that lost the ATB competition allegedly was also a flying wing, but it had a V tail.

You are correct! Thanks for posting the Tacit Blue, the ugliest aircraft I ever worked on. I was responsible for the controls and displays, mostly F-5 stuff, airdata computer, and fuel management computer. It still reminds me of the Seaview!

For Soren sake, I was on the B-2 initial design/proposal team representing avionics. I joined about 6 months after it started (I transfered over from Tacit Blue). I was responsible for the initial design of the controls and displays, the CNI (com, nav, ident), and flight management (computers). After go-ahead, I was the design manager for Controls and Displays, which was about 95% of the pilot interface. Since we had a fully integrated C&D with color multpurpose display units, where I had the responsibity for all logic and symbology, I had intimate knowledge of fuel, hydraulic, electrical, weapons (including special weapons), radar, tactical situations, flight control operations, etc. Everything I, and you, said was correct. I did not know anything classified about the stealth characteristic nor did I know anything about the design specifics of the aerodynamics but I have no doubt what you said and I said is correct. Who did you know from the program?

[Soren]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I'll step up and say I do. I've worked with and met some of the people who designed the aircraft and I could tell you while there was "inspirational" considerations, the B-2 design was based on research and other test vehicles developed by Northrop in the 70s. IMO it was in the back of their minds knowing that the ultimate goal, an intercontinental stealth bomber was probably best configured with a flying wing and I'm sure they had not only the Horten Brothers on their minds, but also earlier Northrop products. Soren, I'll state here that when the B-2 started, it was on a "clean piece of paper."

BTW - the Lockheed/ Rockwell team that lost the ATB competition allegedly was also a flying wing, but it had a V tail.

Were you in the design team FLYBOYJ ?

Originally Posted by davparlr

Your joking right?

I most certainly am not.

Various control systems, hook ups and aerodynamic features might very well have been partly copied or considered from the Ho-229. And even if not a single thing was directly taken from the Ho-229 then just by studying it could've brought up several crucial questions or ideas for the B-2 bomber project.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Graeme

Did Northrop or the Hortens ever visit Australia?

The first flying wing concept aircraft John Northrop provided to hte AF for testing utilized many of the characteristics of the boomerang. Unfortunately they killed the project, the pilots complained too much about being dizzy!

[Soren]

I do believe that there was a reason for why Northrop sent some peeps out to look at the Ho-229 in early 1980. Not necessarily to copy anything from the Ho-229, but to learn about the effectiveness of the some its features and how to improve them even further. We have afterall come a long way since the 1940's. Maybe there were some aerodynamic design elements which could be added to stabilize the a/c more without adding any extra radar signature. Maybe there was some interesting internal stuff to look at ? Who knows...

There's however no doubt in my mind that they went there to study & learn, and I'm sure they did the same on the B-35 & 49.

[GrauGeist]

Not wanting this thread to stray any further than it already has, but Soren, were you on the B-2 design team?

In other words, the complexity of the B-2 Spirit dictates that the design and interior components would have to be far more advanced than anything the Horton brothers ever dreamed of when the Ho229 was in it's design & construction phase. Just the speeds of the B-2 alone require different formulas for the wing to allow stable flight. In addition, the Flying wing bombers that Jack successfully built and flew were far larger and complex than the '229 and required a different set of logistics to get them airborn reliably.

I understand the fancy of equating the Ho229 to the success of the B-2, but in reality there's very little connection to the two save for the basic shape and principles of each by virtue of the above mentioned reasons.

I think that each one of us here at the forums have unique perspectives and experiences to contribute to the discussion of the various aircraft, but unless Jack and his staff were here, or even the brothers and/or Lippisch, then we have to rely on the information and statistics that we have available, and come to a logical conclusion based on that.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Soren

Were you in the design team FLYBOYJ ?



I most certainly am not.

Various control systems, hook ups and aerodynamics features might very well have been partly copied or considered.

I was on the design team and I am telling you that this comment is a joke. Did the Ho-229 use 4000 psi hydraulics or three phase, 400 hz power. Was the wiring system nuclear hardened never before seen, was the hook ups stressed to vibration levels high enough to melt solder on circuit boards? Did it use zone managers for installations. Was it designed to EMI levels greater than any aircraft in the world (the suppliers laughed when they saw that until they realized we were serious). The aerodynamics were just as unique. We could not even us normal air data sensors. The Ho-229 was a '55 Chevy to the B-2's 2009 Mercedes.

[GrauGeist]

Originally Posted by davparlr

I was on the design team...

Oops...I think that ammends my last sentance