Preservation of Horten flying wing
Preservation of Horten flying wing
The National Air and Space Museum (NASM) failed to preserve this aircraft and although now stabilised it is in poor condition.
"There had been little interest in the Horten until claims about its supposed stealth capabilities surfaced in popular media. Public pressure to remove the aircraft from deep storage and put it on display prompted the conservation department’s involvement"
"The Horten was never completed and it has never flown. NASM acquired the Horten in 1952, seventeen years after it had been captured in Germany by the Allied forces near the end of the war. At this time NASM had a shortage of storage facilities, and the museum had not been built. Consequently, it sat outdoors in wooden crates from 1952 until 1974, and this is where most of its current condition issues originate."
http://www.conservation-us.org/docs/...).pdf?sfvrsn=2
Starts on front page and continues on page 3.
A bit harsh to say they “failed” when the museum didn’t even exist when the wing was first captured and most Axis aircraft were simply bulldozed, burned or scrapped by most nations post war. The artifact was an incomplete, unflown aircraft at the time, really a minor footnote at the time. Sure it would have been great if it had been in a climate controlled hangar. I’m just happy it exists and Mr Garber has the foresight that most everyone else lacked.
I think someone's maths are suspect as well; 1945 to 1952 is bit less than the seventeen years quoted.
Sorry Archimedes: our posts crossed.
Sorry Archimedes: our posts crossed.
Northrop-Grumman employees built a full size replica of this and ran in their wind tunnel and 'stealth' facility...
http://sandiegoairandspace.org/colle...229-v3-mock-up
http://sandiegoairandspace.org/colle...229-v3-mock-up
A bit harsh to say they “failed” when the museum didn’t even exist when the wing was first captured and most Axis aircraft were simply bulldozed, burned or scrapped by most nations post war. The artifact was an incomplete, unflown aircraft at the time, really a minor footnote at the time. Sure it would have been great if it had been in a climate controlled hangar. I’m just happy it exists and Mr Garber has the foresight that most everyone else lacked.
The Horten flying wings were aerodynamically very far ahead of the Northrop (and everyone elses) wings. Probably would have just hurt their egos! Unless you go read the books and interpret the data (if there's any left) you wouldn't know - because they were the losers (one of the brothers was pretty hardcore NSDP so that didn't help, but its how they managed to get the attention of the hierarchy and then the resources the other needed to build the aircraft). The RAF got one of the Horten prone position gliders.
From Wally Khan's book 'A glider pilot bold...':
(In the Horten glider), the pilot lies on his stomach, his chin resting on a leather pad and his feet on pedals behind him.
Jock Forbes, the Chief Instructor of Saltzgitter flew it with hilarious results. Dr Horten, ever mindful of the pilot 'comfort' requirement had provided a pee-tube built into the fuselage design. However it was essential that the pilot before being strapped down took advantage of the fitting and offered up his vital part in the obvious manner. This Jock did more as a giggle as he was planning to stay up very long. However on take-off a small leather cover on the outside end of the pipe fell off and a substantial suction was created due to the venturi effect. On landing Jock's comment was "Apart of the extreme discomfort I do not know whether to be pleased or sorry!"
Jock Forbes, the Chief Instructor of Saltzgitter flew it with hilarious results. Dr Horten, ever mindful of the pilot 'comfort' requirement had provided a pee-tube built into the fuselage design. However it was essential that the pilot before being strapped down took advantage of the fitting and offered up his vital part in the obvious manner. This Jock did more as a giggle as he was planning to stay up very long. However on take-off a small leather cover on the outside end of the pipe fell off and a substantial suction was created due to the venturi effect. On landing Jock's comment was "Apart of the extreme discomfort I do not know whether to be pleased or sorry!"
These aircraft were made under wartime conditions in the open or in unqualified factories and with ersatz materials by unqualified people including prisoners. Not made to last.
To blame the museum now for not having it airworthy is a bit unfair. I consider it a great fact that they have kept it and saved it when post-wartime research was terminated and those former high tech aicraft were abandonded and considered junk. No surprise that those remains age after all those years.
To blame the museum now for not having it airworthy is a bit unfair. I consider it a great fact that they have kept it and saved it when post-wartime research was terminated and those former high tech aicraft were abandonded and considered junk. No surprise that those remains age after all those years.
€0.00008 supplied,
PDR
PDR
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ersatz materials ?
In 1940 the British started building a light bomber out of what has been called above “ Erstaz materials “ and it was very successful, the Germans just followed suit with the flying wing.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northrop-Grumman employees built a full size replica of this and ran in their wind tunnel and 'stealth' facility...
San Diego Air & Space Museum - Historical Balboa Park, San Diego
San Diego Air & Space Museum - Historical Balboa Park, San Diego
The northrup flying wing built in the late 40's (YB-49) was somewhat of a surprise re radar tracking as I perhaps wrongly recall
As the linked article states the replica was built by NG Corporation (founded 1995) and National Geographic channel (founded 2001) it seems unlikely to have had any noticeable impact upon the state of the art
According to the wiki page it was in 2008, and they found no significant "stealth capability" worth noting. And remember that the test sample was just a wooden skin - no engines or wheels and none of the massive steel-tube spaceframe structure of the actual aeroplane.
There are some silly claims that one of the 229s achieved ~730mph, but these people had clearly been smoking something they shouldn't have. Even if they had the power (which they didn't, with less than 4,000lbs of installed thrust) to fly at that speed they'd be well beyond Mcrit, and the short control moment to the wing-tip elevons couldn't have provided anything like the elevator power needed to oppose the the transonic trim change even if they worked at all at that speed. This was what destroyed the similarly-configured DH108s.
PDR
There are some silly claims that one of the 229s achieved ~730mph, but these people had clearly been smoking something they shouldn't have. Even if they had the power (which they didn't, with less than 4,000lbs of installed thrust) to fly at that speed they'd be well beyond Mcrit, and the short control moment to the wing-tip elevons couldn't have provided anything like the elevator power needed to oppose the the transonic trim change even if they worked at all at that speed. This was what destroyed the similarly-configured DH108s.
PDR
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Warsaw
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those aircraft were intended to survive few months of operational service at best. Nobody worried if glues like Kaorit would survive to the next century. Low quality of wartime production also reduced longevity. So I would say it is good enough the aircraft survived so long, and not disintegrated many years ago. It would be good, if they cobble it together in displayable condition. And it is certainly not possible to fly it without replacing all the structure which will result with a copy, and such a copy could be built right now. I wonder if there would be anybody willing to fly it, though.
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure that stands much scrutiny. Horten's concept still relied on cambered sections with washout/reflex to provide a positive static margin, which generates lots of (parasitic) trim drag and a low Mcrit. Northrop's approach was fundamentally different in using non-cambered sections that had minimal pitching moment so the desired static margin was achieved with far less trim drag and a higher Mcrit. Horten DID think up the idea of using a bat-tail to prevent mid-span airflow stagnation (and consequent unpredictable wing-drop at the stall), so that feature was more advanced, but the general concept of the N9 and XB35 was arguably much more advanced.
€0.00008 supplied,
PDR
€0.00008 supplied,
PDR
