Ta183 vs Vampire

[Waynos]

But Soren, how can you call a design that has issues serious enough to prevent it from ever seeing service 'excellent'?

The Defiant and Botha both reached service but I wiould never call them that

PS, What about the HG.III, any thoughts on my earlier meandering with that one?

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by lingo

Not wishing to be rude but I very much doubt that the B-2 has ever exceeded the speed of sound so it is no faster than fighters from the 1950s

And this has what to do with turn rate?

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Waynos

But Soren, how can you call a design that has issues serious enough to prevent it from ever seeing service 'excellent'?

I never said the issues were serious enough to prevent it from ever seeing service, quite the contrary infact. I explained that the reason the flying wing design isn't used much today is partly because engine power has increased as much as it has, making lift production less important than in the past. Aircraft today litterally power themselves through hard turns by use of excess thrust.

In WW2 and immediately after the flying wing design could've proven very useful however it was largely forgotten until the late 80's. So in WW2 Ho/Go-229 would've no doubt proven a menace, sporting superior maneuverability than most a/c in service anywhere and a an unmatched performance to boot. Like I said an excellent design.

The great handling of the Ho-229 was confirmed already in the first glider prototypes of the a/c. Here's one being tested by the Horten brothers:

[lingo]

Originally Posted by davparlr

And this has what to do with turn rate?

Nothing at all. I was replying to:

[QUOTE=Soren;519181][QUOTE=davparlr;519126]

Agreed. The B-2 most likely wont outturn any of the major US fighters in service atm, but the fact that the pilots believe it will says abit about the capabilities of the a/c. Most bomber pilots wouldn't ever dare make such a claim.

And while we're on the subject, what do you know about the B-2s turn rate?

[Waynos]

Originally Posted by Soren

I never said the issues were serious enough to prevent it from ever seeing service,

No, but history does. In the 5-10 years that followed WW2 no similar fighters were developed or used anywhere else, despite the mass export of this technology.

quite the contrary infact. I explained that the reason the flying wing design isn't used much today is partly because engine power has increased as much as it has, making lift production less important than in the past. Aircraft today litterally power themselves through hard turns by use of excess thrust.

Well, not entirely, but what about the 40's and early 50's?

In WW2 and immediately after the flying wing design could've proven very useful however it was largely forgotten until the late 80's.

No it wasn't. The flying wing has long been the holy grail of aircraft designers, even before the Wright brothers, Northrop, Boeing Avro, Armstrong Whitworth, Handley Page and many others were all developing flying wings before during and after the war and new designs appearted regulary through the 60, s 70's and 80's. Why, after 1945, was the Brilliance of the Hortens (for that is something I readily accept) still not enough to see such a design put into service?

Glider tests were also successfuilly accomplished by the allies too, and much more besides as did the Hortens, but it still didn't lead to operational hardware.

Thanks for the photo's though. Looking at the bottom one the shadow of the wing makes for quite a convincing fin too, it caught me out at first glance .

[lingo]

Originally Posted by Soren

lingo,

Where did I mention that the B-2 was ever supposed to be supersonic ? We were talking about turning, not speed

Yes yes dear heart. I was expanding a little on your comment but my elderly eyes misread what you wrote and I thought you had said 'outrun' instead of outturn. Sorry pardon!


The B-2 most likely wont outturn any of the major US fighters in service atm, but the fact that the pilots believe it will says abit about the capabilities of the a/c. Most bomber pilots wouldn't ever dare make such a claim.

[Soren]

No problem what'so'ever lingo

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by Soren

davparlr,

The sole reason I believe that we aren't seeing many flying wing fighters around is the fact that such a design always will have issues with lateral stability. Furthermore since the power of engine these days often supercede the actual weight of the a/c there simply is no need for the huge amount of lift a flying wing provides. But there are ofcourse other factors which are considered, such as visibility from the cockpit and so on, and a flying wing design usually doesn't permit a lot of visibility to anything below the a/c.

Nevertheless, some interesting designs sometimes turn up :

I am sure that flying wing designs have been studied for fighters and the lateral stability issue should be no problems with fly-by-wire systems. However, it appears that maneuverability requirements seem to drive some rather large control surfaces including vertical surfaces, eg. YF-23. The X-47A would probably be cleanest design, both aerodynamically and stealth, if it were expanded into a piloted vehicle. But then, maybe it will be a better UCAV, certainly "g's" could increase. Of course it is more of a delta.

[delcyros]

Originally Posted by Waynos

No, but history does. In the 5-10 years that followed WW2 no similar fighters were developed or used anywhere else, despite the mass export of this technology.



Well, not entirely, but what about the 40's and early 50's?



No it wasn't. The flying wing has long been the holy grail of aircraft designers, even before the Wright brothers, Northrop, Boeing Avro, Armstrong Whitworth, Handley Page and many others were all developing flying wings before during and after the war and new designs appearted regulary through the 60, s 70's and 80's. Why, after 1945, was the Brilliance of the Hortens (for that is something I readily accept) still not enough to see such a design put into service?

Waynos, as an english professor, a good friend of mine repeatedly told me:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But Your argumentation does not apply to this general critique. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence for You and honestly- I am convinced that this preposition is wrong.

First of all, Horten was on something. In fact he developed the aerodynamic rules of the bell shaped lift distribution to give his designs (following the Ho-III) the margin of stability typically missing on flying wings. Horten designed and build many planes in the post war period for sport aeronautics using his design principles. This is not without tradeoffs in drag but more importantly, he was ignored by Northrop, Handley Page and others for his findings in the 50´s, 60´s and 70´s. This is confirmed by dozens of unanswered letters surviving in the archives, where Dr. R. Horten points to his theories adressed primarely to Northrop. It took until the late 70´s that his findings were confirmed by intensive aerodynamic research and his rules are today applied to flying wings of RC-scale, ultra-light design, gliders and single engine powered flying wings, which do not make use of fly by wire technology. FbW does allow for stability without compromising drag, typical for the bell shaped lift distribution spanwise, and thus is the rightly preferred solution for large flying wings today.

Had Northrop, Handley Page, A&W all applied his rules on their fyling wing design -how can You say that these design would have operationally failed based on other criteria than lack of stability (which is properly adressed with bell shaped lift distribution)?

[Waynos]

Delycros, that was a very intersting and thought provoking reply, thank you. You do provide a possible reason why my earlier view may be incorrect. Are you able to post any of this evidence that shows Horten was right but ignored? Or maybe point me in the right direction that I might find it for myself? More questions do occur to me on this subject, for I am an inquisitive fellow. You may already have the answer to them?

Why was Horten ignored? Why would he be?

The root of these questions for me lay in a report in Flight magazine from 1943 extolling the virtues of Hortens superb all-wing gliders - so their knowledge and expertise in the field was an acknowledged fact long before the end of the war.

Also their designs were extensively tested in the UK by RAE and in the USA by NACA, these tests would surely have expanded the knowledge base of all major allied constructors. Other areas of German expertise were comprehensively hoovered up by western designers, so why not this one?

Theory is easily ignored, especially when it is not understood, but it seems very curious that such important knowledge would be totally disregarded, even after domestic testing would have proven it right.

I hope you can see my dilemma.

[delcyros]

For a brief overview over Hortens bell shaped lift distribution in english I prefer:

Horten Nurflugels

Evidence for ignoration of these theories may be found in several cases. All Northtrop design miss the bell shaped lift distribution developed by Horten. Further, I quote from Dr. Horten himselfe, published in Horten / Selinger, Nurflügel. Die Geschichte der Horten Flugzeuge 1933 - 1960 (Graz 1993), p.224:

"Nearly all the new aircraft projects in Germany at the end of the war were tailless designs. I was interrogated by the British after the collapse, along with other designers. We talked about our work, but did not reveal our findings. It was therefore both, tragic and comical to see first the British then the Americans engaged all the same problems that we did ten years before.

I tried to offer my services to the Fairy Aircraft Company in 1947 for work on the supersonic delta aircraft, but while the management was positive in all respects, the general hate-attitude of the people against Germans driven by public press made working there impossible.
As long as experimentation with high aspect ratio flying wings was undertaken in England without proper knowledge of the bell shaped lift distribution, the flying qualities would have been unstatisfying.
(Sic: "Solange man in England mit großen Seitenverhältnissen experimentierte, ohne die Glockenauftriebsverteilung zu kennen, mußten die Flugeigenschaften unbefridiegend bleiben")

Northrop published details of a new aircraft similar to the H V at that time. The machine had negative dihedral wing tips in an apparent (but useless) attempt to combat the skid-roll moment. I tried to contact M. Northrop and offer my assistence, but without success. Later, Northtop factory wasted a large amount of money on several unsuccessful heavy bombers, similar to the H VIII or H XVIII. They could certainly have benefitted from my knowledge of high aspect ratio flying wings! "

The german excerpt on this text is more technically detailed than the short english summery. It appears that Dr. R. Horten has two aims with his book. One is a personal one, the other is a scientific one. One should be careful to seperate between both but he explains why Northrop´s approach must have failed scientifically on the ground of his theoretical findings.

A detailed account on the british interogation report (TN Aero 1703 dating to oct. 1945) has been filed down and is now publicly aviable in the net:

Farnborough Hants - Horten Aircraft History

There was no major investigation into why Hortens glider were stable. One of his vintage H-IV even won the mid US american gliderchampionship in the 60´s-so they were in limited use ( a rare sight). Many unprooven ideas surrounded the flying wing idea at this time.
His solutions are today generally accepted but in turn even outdated with the advent of FbW.
best regards,
delc

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by lingo

Nothing at all. I was replying to:

We said nothing about airspeed, only turning.

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Soren;519181]

Originally Posted by davparlr

Agreed. The B-2 most likely wont outturn any of the major US fighters in service atm, but the fact that the pilots believe it will says abit about the capabilities of the a/c. Most bomber pilots wouldn't ever dare make such a claim.

And while we're on the subject, what do you know about the B-2s turn rate?

I don't think anyone claimed to be knowledgable about the B-2 turn rates, only what a report on what some pilots claimed.

[Soren]

Good post delcyros, I agree completely.

It has actually also been mentioned several times that the technology was forgotten until the development of the B-2 started where staff from Northrop went to the hangar to painstakingly research the Ho-229's airframe in detail. Now why would they have done that if it wasn't for the fact that there was a lot to learn from it??

[FLYBOYJ]

Later, Northtop factory wasted a large amount of money on several unsuccessful heavy bombers, similar to the H VIII or H XVIII. They could certainly have benefitted from my knowledge of high aspect ratio flying wings!

I have issues with that statement.

The B-35 had some propeller governor issues that were eventually addressed, but the war was well over by then. There was always reports of the later B-49 stability problems that eventually lead to an award to Convair for the B-36. Jack Northrop stated on his deathbed that he had conflicts with the DoD and even Truman himself and that is what ended the Northrop flying wings. The B-35 and B-49 did have some issues that could have been addressed especially if the war progressed. IMO neither aircraft could be considered "unsuccessful." Here's a good paper on this.

http://www.dau.mil/pubs/arq/2001arq/Baker.pdf

[FLYBOYJ]

Here's another slant...

Conspiracy?