Flying Wing ???
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The B Word implied Jack Northrop was ahead of the Horten Brothers.
Somehow the Northrop Alpha [ Jack's first attempt was hardly a flying wing was it?]
compared to the original Horten Ho-1 [not too successful either] but it was a tailless aeroplane.
Horten brothers win hands down, especially with their just prewar and wartime designs.
Plus they were on a huge learning curve.
Ho IV
Horton Ho9
Somehow the Northrop Alpha [ Jack's first attempt was hardly a flying wing was it?]
compared to the original Horten Ho-1 [not too successful either] but it was a tailless aeroplane.
Horten brothers win hands down, especially with their just prewar and wartime designs.
Plus they were on a huge learning curve.
Ho IV
Horton Ho9
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rotherham
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was not a two horse race. Swept wing tailles aircraft predate both Northrop and Horten efforts by several years.
During the 20's and 30's several different 'Westland Pterodactyl' types were flown, culminating in a turret fighter in the early 30's. Even earlier was J W Dunne who successfully flew tailless swept biplanes as early as 1910 and supplied one (at least) to the US Navy before the first world war.
During the 20's and 30's several different 'Westland Pterodactyl' types were flown, culminating in a turret fighter in the early 30's. Even earlier was J W Dunne who successfully flew tailless swept biplanes as early as 1910 and supplied one (at least) to the US Navy before the first world war.
Aviate 1138
Gliders vs Powered FWs in my opinion are hardly comparable. I think OBAman is right - it was far from a "2 horse race". The Hortens had some good ideas and plans, but so did Jack Nothrop - all around the same timescales (and I don't believe that either copied each other deliberately). I just get a little tired of the "Germany led the flying wing development" argument that some insist on pushing.
All the best
The B Word
Gliders vs Powered FWs in my opinion are hardly comparable. I think OBAman is right - it was far from a "2 horse race". The Hortens had some good ideas and plans, but so did Jack Nothrop - all around the same timescales (and I don't believe that either copied each other deliberately). I just get a little tired of the "Germany led the flying wing development" argument that some insist on pushing.
All the best
The B Word
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The B Word
The reason the Horten Brothers got the "leading the flying wing development" was probably because in the USA only Jack Northrop ever got mentioned.
Plus the Hortens solution to controlling the pitch, yaw, roll axis' was elegant and ingenious to boot.
Of course it was more than a 2 horse race but to say gliders and powered are not comparable is to ignore the fact that some of the Horten designs were originally for powered flight but the engines were made unavailable. Either Pulse Jet or Jet Turbine engines became unobtainable. Adolph.
No one was pushing.
All the best
Aviate 1138
PS As a kid I remember seeing an/the AW 52 flying overhead [South Bucks] and what a beautiful sight it was. Something about flying wings that gets my attention.....
The reason the Horten Brothers got the "leading the flying wing development" was probably because in the USA only Jack Northrop ever got mentioned.
Plus the Hortens solution to controlling the pitch, yaw, roll axis' was elegant and ingenious to boot.
Of course it was more than a 2 horse race but to say gliders and powered are not comparable is to ignore the fact that some of the Horten designs were originally for powered flight but the engines were made unavailable. Either Pulse Jet or Jet Turbine engines became unobtainable. Adolph.
No one was pushing.
All the best
Aviate 1138
PS As a kid I remember seeing an/the AW 52 flying overhead [South Bucks] and what a beautiful sight it was. Something about flying wings that gets my attention.....
Slightly off topic perhaps:
I had the pleasure of a holding posting waiting for MOTU at HQ Coastal Command in 1968-69, where one of my duties was Oi/c Records and historical documents which were held in the old HQCC building - a lovely old country house which also doubled as the Officers' Mess. One of the documents I happened to read detailed the Shackleton replacement (competition!) and gave a number of detailed plans of the different submissions - which by that time had been 'won' by the Nimrod.
However, the most striking plan was essentially a flying wing with (I think) four engines and not that far different to what is now the B2. It also had space for a large crew with a good lookout area, as well as the ability to carry a large weapon load, as well as projected extended range due to low fuel consumption. It was obviously a serious contender but had eventually been discounted because none of the (then) kipper fleet airfields could take it - runways and hangers needed widening being just part of the problems.
Unfortunately not long after I saw the document the whole building was destroyed by fire and all the historical documents and memorabilia were just ash.
Now my question - I've seen no reference to this aircraft since then. Has anyone else out there in ppruneland come across this (mythical) beast.
Pertama
I had the pleasure of a holding posting waiting for MOTU at HQ Coastal Command in 1968-69, where one of my duties was Oi/c Records and historical documents which were held in the old HQCC building - a lovely old country house which also doubled as the Officers' Mess. One of the documents I happened to read detailed the Shackleton replacement (competition!) and gave a number of detailed plans of the different submissions - which by that time had been 'won' by the Nimrod.
However, the most striking plan was essentially a flying wing with (I think) four engines and not that far different to what is now the B2. It also had space for a large crew with a good lookout area, as well as the ability to carry a large weapon load, as well as projected extended range due to low fuel consumption. It was obviously a serious contender but had eventually been discounted because none of the (then) kipper fleet airfields could take it - runways and hangers needed widening being just part of the problems.
Unfortunately not long after I saw the document the whole building was destroyed by fire and all the historical documents and memorabilia were just ash.
Now my question - I've seen no reference to this aircraft since then. Has anyone else out there in ppruneland come across this (mythical) beast.
Pertama
PS As a kid I remember seeing an/the AW 52 flying overhead [South Bucks] and what a beautiful sight it was. Something about flying wings that gets my attention.....
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bristol
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviate, what was the Horten control system?
IIRC the problem with flying wings is that on a conventional cambered airfoil the CP moves forward as alpha increases - basically an unstable movement. For that reason FWs used a reflex trailing edge - which you can see clearly on library shots of the big Northrops - that gave the opposite movement. Is this so?
Dick
IIRC the problem with flying wings is that on a conventional cambered airfoil the CP moves forward as alpha increases - basically an unstable movement. For that reason FWs used a reflex trailing edge - which you can see clearly on library shots of the big Northrops - that gave the opposite movement. Is this so?
Dick
