Troy Tempest: Some pronunciation tips - North-rop not North-rope. H-O not Ho 229. Göring - Ger-ring, 1000kph - 625mph not 620. I'm glad you're deferring to metric and then Imperial. Reimar Horton, in German you always pronounce the second vowel, so Ri (rye) mar. 2 cannons not two machine guns. The Germans did know the British had radar during the Battle of Britain, they attacked the radar towers often. Junkers is Yunkers (J pronounced Y), W is pronounced V. A squadron is 16 planes, one squadron would not have had any realistic effect on the US bomber fleet. They would have needed hundreds of them. Hope you do a video on the Me 163 Komet, worlds first, and only, operational rocket fighter! Hail!
I might also add that two 30mm cannons being called "hardly packing" a huge understatement considering that in testing the mk 108 was able to cause critical damage with only a few shots. Though I do understand that there is a subjective argument to be made on whether multiple smaller calibre machine guns would have been better considering mass on target.
A 30mm mineshell has the equivalent in explosives of a hand grenade. There were tests done by the allies. A single hit on a smaller plane like a fighter was always listed as "lethal" or "probably lethal". Even on heavy bombers, a 30mm mineshell caused severe damage to the structure and ripped parts off. Naturally with the lower cadence and less ammo carried, they'd more often be used against large targets. 30mm guns were ideal for intercepting bomber formations.
@@dennis17116 Hello. I would like to let everyone know that, the H-229, is not THE Nazi secret weapon or a lot of you may call it. Yes the developement of this aircraft is very real, but It is a cover up to what the Nazis were actually planning under the surface.
@@alexander1485 Pardon, 30mm is in fact a cannon caliber. The german nomenclature use MK to denote a machine cannon (or at least that is the literal translation) compared to what would be described as a machine gun (which in german nomenclature was below 15mm, although maybe one of the 20mm cannons used MG in its designation)
none Horten flying wing was armed and only some prototypes did fly, all the rest is pure invention...and the 30mm german air cannon was pretty bad: low accuracy, low reliazbility, the 20mm Hispano Suiza HS404 (french design cannon (use on Morane 406 and Dewoitine D520, firing trough propeller shaft), adopted from the Brits with some mods to fit in the wings) was MUCH better...
@@halogeek6 nah, it was hortens entry into the "amerkia bomber" project, competing with messerchmidts me264 and foke wulfs modified-fw200, it resembled a 229 but significantly larger
even though he gives out incorrect data? I suggest watching Military Aviation History on the HO 229 as his information is correct Sadly this guy keeps referring to data thats false It's definitely an interesting and fun channel but sad and annoying when he uses bad sources
I think that the narrator woefully underestimated Jack Northrop and actually gravely insulted hum. History is filled with inventors developing the same idea at about the same time who were unaware of each other's work, Both Horten and Northrop were great designers but Northrop did not obtain the Horten design data until after Germany's defeat
"... hardly packing, only carrying two 30mm cannons." lol Wut? That's a very powerful armament, a single shell from either of those 2 cannons would be enough to completely destroy most fighter aircraft. At the very least, it would put a very big hole in it. These were relatively fast-firing fully automatic 30mm cannons for their day too, so even just a few seconds on target would be enough to inflict catastrophic damage. I don't think you have any grasp on just how powerful 30mm cannons are.
yeah, 30mm minengeschoß shells could nearly sever the tail of bombers in a single hit, the only reason it could be said to be not too powerful is because stuff like like the Me 262 had 4 30mm mk 108 autocannons and also 2 20mm MG151/20s
@@user-Xx0xxxxx Preach. Those M-shells were known to rip Allied bombers, and that’s coming from a single MK-108 on a Bf-109. The only downside maybe was the equally powerful blowback from the autocannons, which rumbled throughout the fuselage. They weren’t called “pneumatic hammers” by pilots for nothing.
If it's the MK103 30mm gun then it is indeed underwhelming since the build quality was kinda shit so they have to use smaller propellant causing slower muzzle velocity, if it's the MK 108 then it's a different kind of beast in itself.
@@nebunezz_r Nope, the reason for the low muzzle velocity is the short barrel, wich is only about 0,5m long, giving you about 500 m/s at the muzzle. The barrel was so short to cut down on space and and weight. The MK 108 is about 88kg lighter and 1,2m shorter than the long barreled MK 103. Both guns share the same projectile, but the MK 103 30x184 Borsig cartridge holds much more powder then the 30x90 RB MK 108 cartride, as the short barrel cannot take advanate of the additional powder. That both can use the same 30mm Mineshell also shows, that the very thin wall of that projectile was not the limiting factor for projectlie speed. For comparison, the MK 103 muzzle velocity was 860m/s compared to the 545m/s of the MK 108. This also allowed the effective use of AP Shells aggainst tanks in the MK 103. The build quality was not the problem in the MK 108, the short barrel was. But it was also supposed to shoot at slow moving bombers, and not at fighters, thus, the low muzzle velocity. It was a trade off, and the germans traded muzzle velocity and rate of fire for the maximum bang per weapon weight. If you want to look up a really cool late war german weapons project, look up the MG 213/20 or MG 213/30. That aircraft gun would have fixed almost problems of the earlier guns. High rpm (1000 rpm for the 20mm), light weight (56kg) and high muzzle velocity (at least for the 20mm version). That gun was in fact so good, that every one copied it :P Even the board cannon on the eurofighter (BK27) can trace itselt back to this gun. Have a nice evening :) Oh, and sorry for my autistic info dump, that is a subject i am really interested in.
@@13deadghosts Ho 229's sporting Mk 103s would have shredded B-17 and B-24 boxes. Then imagine them getting retrofitted with the MG 213/30s. Glad this amazing airplane never got into the fight...
Jack Northrop was obsessed with the flying wing and was working on the design before the war. His company had a few test beds, like the flying ram, working during the war. Oh, and the XB-35 was developed all through the war. I think somebody else first designed a flying wing and Northrop and Horton just happened to be working on parallel projects. Kind of like Goddard and von Braun and the Russian rocket scientist whose name I can't spell.
@@BrapBrapDorito So did he? Well you might want to look up those two planes again...and chances are high that you will come across a section about technical issues those two planes had in particular...
I know about the technical issues, but those did fly. Also don’t act like the 229 didnt have technical issues too. Nearly every early flying wing had trouble flying, 229 included. Even our modern flying wings like the B2, B21 and the XB47 drone are still inherantly unstable and need constant adjustments from the fly by wire systems to keep them in the air.
@@BrapBrapDorito Look man, that is exactly my point. Those Horten brothers sure had also tech difficulties, but they pulled an amazing thing, that has never been done again in aviation since they did it... they got their tailless plane stable without modern flight assisting systems.
Much gets made about the.Third Reich’s various technological advancements, particularly it’s aircraft innovations. But let me relieve you of the notion that, if only they had entered service, it would have altered the outcome of the conflict. Short of the Reich developing atomic weapons, (which they weren’t), they were doomed. Not V weapons or jet technology was ever going to be sufficient to overcome the manufacturing advantages that the Allies possessed nor the shear numbers of boots on the ground that the Red Army had.. Suffice to say, that also lacked the one essential ingredient of any offensive enterprise; leadership. Goering was largely nursing his morphine delusions and preening over his stolen art; and hitler was equally deluded and in the final analysis, a corporal trying to manage the task of several field Marshalls. Their lack or resources, particularly oil, and their increasing reliance on slave labor to build their aircraft and missiles was all but a tacit admission of failure. They were doomed from Stalingrad forward.
Still insane that they were essentially 50 years ahead of even the United States. The B2, which is very similar, didn't come out until 1997. 50 years is absolutely indescribably HUGE. Very, very scary to think about what they could have done if they had the means. And this isn't even mentioning the prototype spacebomber, the Silbervogel.
@@scottkrafft6830 Where do you get this 50 years nonsense. Look at the flying wing bomber the Hortons were claiming to be trying to produce. Not even a prototype. The Nazis might, with a massive expenditure of resources, managed to design and build an aircraft to match the B-29. Maybe. The Me-262 had performance characteristics that exceeded that of the Gloster Meteor, except in reliability and service requirements. An Me-262 returning from flight would need significant maintenance before it could fly again. Gloster Meteors were famous for being able to land, receive new ammunition and fuel, and take off again. The Allied technology comes off less flashy because the Allies were not throwing prototypes into production, they were throwing well engineered equipment into mass production. Because they fielded them in such numbers and they worked so reliably, the B-29 seems like a regular routine aircraft. But it was one of the most advanced aircraft in the world (perhaps the most). The development of the B-29 consumed such research and development resources that it might be considered a second Manhattan Project all its own. But where Allied technology really shines is in the Battle of the Atlantic.. You put resources into where you need technology. For the Allies, it was in countering the u-boat threat. In 1943 Germany introduced snorkels that would allow diesel engines on u-boats to be run while the submarine was submerged, in an effort to cut down on u-boat losses. Didn't matter much. Advanced aircraft mounted radar along with other technological advances (like homing torpedoes) had doomed the u-boats. Shipping losses were falling rapidly while u-boats were being lost about as fast as they could be produced (and faster than replacement crews could gain experience. If you said that Germany was even 5 years ahead of the U.S. I'd say you were exaggerating. Germany was ahead in some technologies, behind in others. There was no prototype Silbervogel. It was a proposed design but was considered too complex to be able to develop into a functional plane. Germany might have been able to build a Silbervogel if they had not been so short of resources and had found some way to drag the war out into the 1950's, and if the engineering challenges for the craft were not too difficult to overcome.
@@iansneddon2956 you do realize the Smithsonian has one of these very planes in their aircraft collection the very first prototype was crashed on its 10th test flight two more flying example were actually built one of which is the aforementioned Smithsonian example
One thing, Jack Northrop and the Horton Brothers were working on the Fling Wing concept at the same time. Jack Northrop had conceived of the idea from gliding seeds from a tree species. Neither Northrop nor the Horton Brothers knew each other. Northrop started working on the Flying Wing design long before WWII as a test bed for both passenger and military aircraft. During WWII Northrop had made several versions of all wing aircraft, including rocket powered. One design was strictly a ramming aircraft with Titanium reinforced wings designed to cut through another aircraft. Northrop had made several small single seat prototypes. One being the N9M that was restored and flying for several years. But unfortunately crashed during a practice for an airshow and was lost. There are several videos on RUclips of that Wing, here is one: ruclips.net/video/lSf5TX_FcBw/видео.html Though this information would help you. BTW, there was also a French designer that made a type of flying wing that flew in the early 1900's. It wasn't a full wing though, as it still had a tail for stabilization. But it didn't have a fuselage. The pilot sat inside the wing.
yeah, most of this rarely talked about. Germany did have a lot of firsts, but the flying wing wasn't one of them, though i will admit i didn't know about the french one.
@@Wowflunky The Flying Wing has always been a fascination of mine. I think the first time I saw one was in the 1953 movie of H G Wells The War of the Worlds when I was just a kid. There are only a few short senes showing the Flying Wing, but I though it was beautiful and wondered why nothing ever came of the design. ruclips.net/video/esqQXQ9n7u4/видео.html Up until the internet started to get big, it was extremely hard to find any information on any of the Wings. Though I did find a model as a kid and the first book I found was in the 1980's. In that book, they say that the actual weight that the Wing could carry was still classified information and the USAF C-5 Cargo aircraft could carry less than half that. But there's information out now that has several weight lifting figures. How much of that is true, I don't know. A few years ago I picked up 2 big model kits of the X/YB-35 and the YB-49 from AMT at a local Hobby Store. I'm trying to get the model of the Horton HO 299. Ironically the same model designation of the Boeing B-17 (Model 299) when it was first designed. But since the F-117 was developed, the Flying Wing design of Jack Northrop was re-investigated and the B-2 was developed, Soon the second version, the B-21 will start entering the Air Force. But you are right, that Germany was the first to develop many things. Though the British and the Germans were working on the Jet engine at the same time, the Germans had the better design. The British, Whittle Jet Engine was a centrifugal jet. Much like how a Turbocharger in a car compresses air by spinning it out to the side. I worked a few T-33 Jets that used that type of jet engine, the J-33 engine, while I was in the USAF. One of my favorite German Jets was the HE-162 Volksjäger. Though there were problems, mainly with the glue for the wooden parts, I believe it was superior to the ME-262. It just came out at the very end of the war to be any good. BTW, the Italians made a Jet aircraft just Before WWII, It was more of a deducted fan than a jet engine. They used a piston engine to turn the compressor. It did fly and Italy had a few in service at the start of the war. But the performance was bad. Check that one out sometime, it is a real oddity that worked but is even less known than the Flying Wing.
There was plenty of flying wing aircraft back really until the dawn of aviation. In effect the wright brothers aircraft is a flying wing, because it have a canard its also in effect tailless, but not canard less. What confuse it a bit is that people assume that flying wing is tailless, that is not really always the case. Northrop had made a tailed flying wing already back in 1928. That wasn´t that strange of a concept. In 1917 the Burgess-Dunne biplane was sort of tailless also, and kind of sort of a flying wing.. or wings. In 1931 Lippisch made the Delta I a sort of blended wing hybrid that was tailless. Both Northrop's early wings had fins added, making them not true tailless flying wings. The YB-35 sort of looks like a mix of a Lippisch delta I and the 1928 Northrop flying wing. Because the Delta I was not only pre war, but also pre Nazi Germany, there is a good chance that Northrop know about it. Its no secret that the Horten brothers was inspired by Lippisch.. both being German. Comparing YB35 and HO 229, its really the tail... sort of, of the aircraft that is diffrent. Most other parts predates second world war.
@@matsv201 i knew that there were many planes that fit the flying wing description but i always simplified it by saying if it had vertical stabilizers (tails) it wasn't a flying wing. Yes over simplification as there are gray areas in everything...but it did allow for the it's a wing and it's damn close to a wing folders. that's why in my book there are very few actual flying wings.
The term "bell shape" refers to the lift distribution of the wing not the actual shape of the wing. It is what makes it possible to fly without vertical stabilizers. The very nice german word for it is: Glockenauftriebsverteilung
@Brian Roome that joke almost defeated 7 world powers, provided the technology for all the cold war, the moon landing, transonic flight, fuel refinement, international mass transport, nuclear reactors + bombs and intercontinental flight.
Proud to say that they were developed by the two Horten brothers (from my hometown) and test flown on the Hangelar airfield, one of the oldest airfields in the world, which is just down the road from where I live and where the GSG-9 (Germany's anti-terror unit) is also headquartered.
In San Diego California you can see the Horten 229 model that was created for the History show that was about its supposed stealth characteristics. It's a impressive model that shows how large the fighter/bomber was. Kinda also gives a idea how it would look like in the air as well.
Germans did know about radar as they also had radars themselves. What they did not know was Downing air defence system that would guide British fighters towards German bomber formations.
Yes but they didnt know how to nullify Radar. they didnt have the knowhow to create a stealth plane, nor the money, time, equipment, manpower or really anything.
@@felixschrider9037testing conducted by Lockheed and Northrup confirmed that the Ho-229 had a significant reduction in frontal RCS and would have given the aircraft a tactical advantage against British detecton radar systems..
I was lucky enough to see a hull of the Ho-229 and other german flying wings in Washington, D.C. It was so amazing! Edit: It is in the Smithsonian museum! They also have the Enola Gay, the DO-335, and a komet.
@@WaukWarrior360 yeah, there was some F-14 and late cold war jets, and a gyrocopter? (Plane with helicopter rotor) a flying platform, and I think the N-1- I might have a picture
@@WaukWarrior360 neighter of the two is the first flying wing. The hortense build there first true flying wing, the horten h-1 in 1934. Turing the röhn glider competition of that year that plane completed a flight lasting 7 hours. And even that plane most likely can not claim to be the first flying wing, depending on your definition of a flying wing
@@blu5021 The H-229, was impressively thought out design in the 40s. But it is far from being called the Nazis secret weapon. This wing aircraft now plays a role of a cover up of something more cunning.
@Jimjimmyjames Smith two words for you: “differential drag”. But unfortunately you can only do that using computers. When the pilot presses the “rudder” pedal in a B-2 he’s basically just telling the computer nervous system that he wants to yaw the plane. Then those systems decide how to go about it. Moving different control surfaces, maybe even the engines, to fulfill the pilot input
The use of wood for construction was due to the shortage of aluminium and skilled labour to work with. The mentioned stealth wing was a sandwich construction with charcoal and wood flour in the middle of the sandwich with wood forming also the outer shell. But this wing wasn`t built due limited time, as they had to skip the wet wing concept, due to the lack of fuel resistant glue. The Horten IX is comparable to the Mosquito regarding stealth and construction material. Low drag was one goal of the Horten brothers. But to make their wings controlable they choose to use a bell shaped lift distribution, which produced more drag than an eliptical lift distirbution. So there were no gains here, but the Horten wings were among the first flying wings which were controlable. The redesign from Gotha Waggonfabrik was nothing major. The major redesign occured before, as the dimensions from the engine changed from 600 mm in diameter to 800 mm height and 600 mm wide due to changes in the placing of accessories. The wing span was increased from 16 to 16.8 m and the wing thickness rose to. The critical mach number was expected at 0.75 and the stall speed of V 2 was 150 km/h. The characteritic form of the trailing edge (called in the video "bell shaped") was due to the effect that a swept wing produces less lift in the middle as expected (Mittenefekt), and as a simple solution they increased the wing area in the middle. I just took an old book (Nurflügel, ISBN 3-900310-09-02) from the shelf to look after some of the mentioned details above.
I took photos of the horten through the large windows that separate the museum and restoration center at the Udver Hazy museum Duelles. . This was three years ago. I was shocked I thought it was still in storage.
In a biography of the Horten Brothers that I read, it said they only joined the Nazi Party so their designs could see competition. If you were not a member, than you could not compete. They also admitted to "following" the exploits of American flying wing pioneer, Jack Northrop, in all of the aviation magazines that they read.
By far my most favourite experimental WWII warplane next to the J7W Shinden. There's something so menacing about a flat slab of a wing travelling at subsonic speeds before decimating a WWII Allied heavy bomber within seconds. In an era where jet engines only lasted about 25 hours before needing a replacement, and mechanical tricks to carefully balance a plane without any help from computers, the Ho-229 was a very radical wonder weapon that surpasses the Me-262 in almost every aspect. Today the aerodynamic benefits of a blended wing design is known within the aerospace industry, that contractors such as Boeing and Lockheed swore by it and developed both manned and unmanned flying wings. I would love you to make a video on the B-21 Raider some day, which honestly looks like a 21st Century version of the Ho-229 that's just as big as the B-2 Spirit.
The first flying wing was actually the Northrop N-1M and the Norhtrop XB-35 was also more advanced than the Ho. 229. Meanwhile the P-80 shooting star was a superior jet fighter compared to the Me 226 and the B-29 was the most advanced aircraft of WW2
@@WaukWarrior360 More advanced? Nah man, more like different engineering solutions. As much as I love Northrop he used a completely different aerodynamic technique to solve a tailless design; he used a butterfly flap that would deploy automatically when the plane banked beyond a set of pre-determined angles instead of relying on very precise (and very German) calculations for a teardrop-shaped trailing edge like the Horten brothers did. Flying wings have a special place in my heart for how radical and clean it is. Also, the P-80 was single-engined with the engine buried inside its fuselage, making for a clean aerodynamic design but a complicated maintenance especially early jet engines which would typically last about 30 hours before needing an entire replacement. It wasn’t as fast as the Jumo-004 powered Me-262 but it was more agile. Like I said, different aerodynamic approach.
@@Nafeels Even with a Jumo-004 Engine the Me 262 had a top speed of 550mph compared to the P-80s 600mph. In addition to that the P-80 also had a longer range, higher flight ceiling, was more maneuverable as you mentioned, had more payload capacity, double the armament etc. Also considering that the J-33 engine was more reliable than the Jumo-004 and jet engines are serviced at airfields instead of in combat environments the ease of access to the engine isn't as important.
@@Nafeels The "teardrop" trailing edge of the Ho. 229 did not lend itself to greater aerodynamic stability. The Ho. 229 was to use elevons and spoiler as controls where as the Northrop designs consolidated the elevons and spoilers into "clamshell" controls. In addition they could be employed automatically as you said. Further the Ho. 229 never even flew. Also, if "very precise, very German calculations" were a real thing then German equipment from the war wouldn't have such a poor reputation for reliabilty. As they say, "if Germany invented the paperclip, it would have 11 different moving parts".
I just wanna say your team's animation skills are always on point, please tell them that they are appreciated. Some channels make cheesy 2d animations but yall are good
I was thinking of saving this video on my liked playlist so I could guarantee something nice to watch while eating dinner, but screw it lol I can’t resist watching a Found And Explained video right away.
The earliest example of a functional flying wing that I can think of are the ones designed by John W. Dunne, the D.5 through D.7 series especially, which was back in 1910 in England.
@@owenshebbeare2999 You're faulty presupposition is predicated on the misnotion that you have any credible evidence to dispute what I've said and the mistaken belief that I'm an American.
@@owenshebbeare2999 My refutation of the falsehood is motivated by the fact that Germans and those synthetic to the Nazi cause always want to pretend Germany was more technologically advanced than is evidenced
They have one of these in the Udvar Hazy air and space museum in northern Virginia. It is a genuinely amazing piece to look at. Both for how it looks and it’s size. It literally looks like a toy in size compared to all the conventional WW2 planes. However it also looks positively otherworldly compared to the conventional aircraft. Truly amazing.
Actually your wrong. Northrop did a radar test on the aircraft and found that if a horton was flying close to the surface, combined with its speed and reduced detection, allied aircraft at Britain would have only roughly 2 and a half minutes to respond which wouldn't have been enough time. Flying close to the surface was a strategy employed by the German airforce.
At 7:45 you state that the high aspect ration of the Horton's wing contributes to its stability against stalling. Not so. The major design feature which does this is the sweep back of the wings which gives a horizontal control moment. In addition washing out at the wing tips causes the inboard wing to stall whilst the wing tips are still not stalled and so can continue controlling the aircraft. Also the the centre of the wing will fall causing the plane to descend, picking up speed, and emerge from the stall. A high aspect ratio wing is indeed more efficient than a low aspect ratio, but aerodynamic effects are not the be all and end all of aircraft design. A high aspect ratio wing is inherently less structurally rigid than a low aspect ration and will need to be built with more structure to make it rigid enough. It is important to remember that a flying wing design could not be made practical until the advent of computerised control systems which could not only deal with aerodynamic control inefficiencies, but also with structural flexibility.
Ho 229 Flying Wing is only one of so many innovation from Germany during ww-2. The flying wing is a breakthrough in aerodynamic. Other innovation is Messerschmitt Me-262 the world first operational jet fighter, V-1 Flying bomb and V-2 ballistic missile.
It was deadly back then to any pilot unlucky enough to fly one, fortunately only one experimental version ever flew briefly and of course crashed killing the test pilot
Pity this was spoilt by the pronunciation and naming errors. The original Horten IX plane was built in an autobahn maintenance facility on the outskirts of Gottingen. The building still stands and I visited it a few years ago. By then there were no workers there that were old enough to know anything other than a plane had been built there. I took my jet turbine powered model Ho IX there and took some photos. Prandtl was a professor at Gottingen in the 1940's, there was a wind tunnel there are a university aerodynamics facility. As others have explained he was the man that gave the theoretical explanation of the reason that the Horten deigns flew. David Myhra's excellent book " The Horten Brothers and their all-wing aircraft" explains how the Horten brothers developed their ideas from models to full size gliders. It appears that Prandtl didn't believe that a flying wing would be stable from the theory as it existed at the time. Apparently he was told about the Horten brothers successful designs and immediately got hold of them at the Autobahn workshop and they arranged a demonstration of one of their earlier designs at Gottingen airfield. He was amazed that the brothers had a very stable design and it was against current aircraft design theory. In effect they had got there by trial and error over many iterations of designs and not by following theory dogma.They found stability improved with wing tip twist and the flying wing had increased amounts of twist compared to 'normal wing designs of the period'. Turning the plane needs a differential aileron movement and the Ho IX used Friese ailerons that caused more drag to assist turning. Interesting that is the some of the approach taken by Space X in the design of their rockets. Failure can yield up much in the design of new ideas and perhaps allow a leap forward. In the book there are some wonderful contemporary photos of the making of the Ho 2-A in 1934/5 in the family house in Bonn with the wing tip poking over the top of the dining table with plates and food on it! Going back to the Horten aircraft my own model was designed by some German friends of mine used a sophisticated computer model. This helped ensure that it would stand a good chance of flying, but very few models of the Ho IX have flown successfully. We had over 30 flights but our confidence in the design was shaken when one day the plane just tumbled when it suffered a complete flow breakdown over the wing and it literally tumbled. Fortunately it was flying high enough that eventually control was re-established. One thing we found was that large nose wheel being at the front of the plane tended to steer the plane and we had a rule not to lower retracts until we were on finals. Interestingly a similar order was made with the full size. Personally I think the original design may have had flaws that may have gone against it. Eric Brown the well known British test pilot knew many of the leading German aircraft designers of WW2 as well as Goering. He was based in Germany before the start of the war. He flew the Horten IV glider and would like to have flown the Gotha Go 229 but the plane was not developed enough to risk finishing and flying it. The engines were unprotected and very close to the pilot. Eric was the only British pilot to fly the Me 163 under power and he flew all the german jet designs at the close of the War. John
Vne is a structural limitation, has noting to do with the ability to cruise at 1000kph. The Horten did not use the bell shape lift distribution Al Bowers talked about. The Bell shape was primarily the innovation of Prandtl, not the Hortens.
Is there any chance you could do a video (or series of vids) on what is call Luft' 46? It's very much inline with this and your other types of video's.
Funny that many of the first UFO sightings reported in the US after WII and before Roswell described flying wings type of aircraft. Hell I even remember a former pilot who draw what he saw and I remember thinking it looked almost exactly as the Horten 229!! Edit: the name of the pilot was Kenneth Arnold, and he reported his sighting in 1947, so it can definitively be a sighting of a test aircraft like the Ho 229!
Fascinating story I was in the United States, Air Force auxiliary, and I specifically study, advanced and unique aircraft design and let me tell you the US Air Force. Will try anything There’s a lot of crazy stuff that people don’t know about if you can think of it they have probably already tried it. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least, if they built an exact working model of a Ho.229 and we’re flying it.
@@afterlife697 I think the story was that they brought the prototype from Germany for testing after the war, or built one from the original plans. I remember they also tried a literal flying saucer the Avro VZ-9 Avrocar. In a way it is also fascinating to think that most UFO may be experimental aircraft made here on Earth! Edit: the US indeed captured a prototype of the Ho 229, which now is in storage in the Smithsonian!
@@mafiousbj I completely agree with you in fact, the educated theory amongst us aviators is that the Roswell crash was an experimental spyplane, and the government created the alien story to cover up for the experimental testing with it.
ima sum some stuff up that's is incorrect through out all of this 0:56 the statement that the Ho 229 was undetectable on radar is outright incorrect the ho 229 was perfectly detectable on radar even when Northrup tested it along with they only make it off wood while the real ho 229 had steal tubes going through it make it less radar efficient also im pretty sure the horents whole center "fuselage" was made of metal 1:23 the statement "the original flying wing" is incorrect its may have been the first jet powered one but not the first the first one was actually N-1 M made in 1929 ( first flying one from memory but there where designs that were alot older ) also they made loads of gliders before hand like heaps not just hornets may i add 2:00 ok im not to sure about this but if someone can correct me here please do. those part can still create lift its life putting your hand out the window of a car while its moving your had will be forced up but i will agree it wont be near as effective as the aerofoil 4:50 thank you for correcting your self 6:40 i have not clue about the competition thing but i would like to add at the time Herman Goering would almost except anything placed on his desk he even exepted a rocket powered plane for god sake and a ph**king tornado gun 11:20 oh this statement i can kinda agree with but compared to other jet aircraft at the time the ho 229 had the average ( german comparison ) amout of armerment the me 163 had dule 30mm the he 162 had dule 30mm's but sometimes had those changed out for dule 20mm's which was more common dule to lacking ammo for the 30's the me 262 often had 4 30mm's but i will had more than one round of the hei-t ammunition was enough to take out an aircraft although fire rate bullet velocity was extremally slow 13:04 i would never call the german late war planes cutting edge more hopeful rushed and poorly made through nothing but a crippled county 13:25 Northrup didn't grab his ideas from the horten brothers he had been making flying wings log before 14:15 ok the idea that Northrup got the design idea for the B2 from the Ho 229 is extremally incorrect its more likely taken from the xb-35 as they had never heard of the ho 229 till they were asked about it which is when they started testing the radar signature on it 13:35 he didnt have the idea ether there where designs for flying wings all the way back to right after the Wright Brothers 16:13 cough cough me 262's and the he 162 im not going to nitpick on pronunciation as ive seen that through all the comments and ive seen your correct you slef ine the comments also please correct me on any of these statements :)
i love that u call it Luftwaffle >_< it sounds to awesome * ^^ * but honestly, the Ho-229 was pretty damn impressive for its time, had they had it earlier and had time to work out some of its kinks, it had prob made a major difference in the war... thank god they didnt
The HO-8 winged bomber is another fascinating aircraft intended to be an 'Amerika bomber'. It's essentially an upscaled horten -229 designed to carry a nuclear payload.
The fact that the Horten brothers were capable of envisioning such a design in the era of early jet engines, was just proof that they were visionaries. Like, damn...
Not really, flying wing designs go back to 1910 at least. There were French ones, Russian ones, British ones and American ones and probably a few more.
You make it sound like Jack Northrop copied the Horten's flying wing concept. In reality Northrop was Working on flying wings as early as 1929, as were other designers.
The Wehraboos want to believe that the Nazis had super-advanced technology… they didn’t. Others were often working on the same or better, they just didn’t rush it into service because they weren’t desperate.
@@Justanotherconsumer These are the same people who believe if the Maus was fielded Germany would somehow win despite the lack of materials Germany was facing by 1944.
@@Justanotherconsumer C'mon there's replete objective evidence that the German's aeronautical design and engineering was a vast cut above their contemporaries elsewhere, there's just way way way too many examples of this to posit your opinion, and it's not just restricted to aeronautics as you well know. You're sounding a little catty and jelly, give the Übermensch their due credit.. 😚
the intro to this video is freaking amazing, love seeing how your renders have advanced. Fun fact, did you know the stealth aspects of the Ho 229 were actually accidental?
There is anthor Horten Gotha Flying wing called P60C redesigned by Dr. Huehnerjager you can watch it at Rechlin Germany. Dr. Huhnerjaeger enhanced the horten wing to an easier to produce and easier field maintenance. The Dr. Huehnerjager P60C design used the engines in a vertical mounting under and above the wing fuselage.
ME-110 is not called "me." It's called "M"-"E." FW-190 is likewise called "F"-"W." So I would pronounce HO in Alphabet, "H"-"O." Besides, "ho" sounds like a bad word to American English speakers.
That last point is something that Americans do all the time: pronouncing acronyms and abbreviations as words, so really your tender Yank sensibilities and triggers are irrelevant- and Germans pronounce it as often as not and Christmasmust be hard for you too...think about it. Also the proper designation for both the 109 and 110 is Bf-, not Me-, so accuracy and depth here wasn't a big selling point for this presentation.
@@owenshebbeare2999 I wish you the best in your endeavors. Being young is a good thing; you have the initiative to actually do things and make things happen.
Very nice video the ho 229 its one of my favorite aircraft designs and i hope you can tell the story about his bigger brother the ho 18 and like dusty miller say i hope the L-133 come in a near future but that will be your decision thank your for doing this type of content
Point of fact: The HO-229 was NOT a stealth aircraft, nor was it "difficult" to detect. Modern tests on the aicraft using radar emitting wavelengths similar to the U.S. Chain Home radar system of WWII found only a 20% reduction in detection range compared to the Bf-109; and that was with a reproduction fuselage that lacked engines, metal framework, fuel tanks, or engines.
Tests conducted by the Americans (without the RAM applied) showed no significant retroreflective structures and a very significant 50% reduction in RCS, this would have delayed detection long enough to give an effective tactical advantage... the use of RAM such as the German _Tarnmatte_ would have contributed to an additional reduction in RCS.
@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke Against Allied Chain Home radar systems, the Ho 229 had a detection range roughly 80% that of a Bf 109. That is only a 20% reduction in detectability. Additionally, all tests were carried out on a mockup that lacked the tube truss structure and engines, the latter of which would have been highly reflective. There were no radar absorbent materials used or planned. The charcoal material commonly cited as RAM was in fact a new adhesive that would have provided no measurable reduction in detection.
@@jfangm The tests conducted by the Americans confirmed a 50% reduction in frontal RCS against British meter band radar _without RAM_ Are you not familiar with German development of RAM during WW2 or its production and military service??? _Tarnmatte_ is the best-known example of German advancements in RAM technology that saw actual service during the war.
@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke That is completely wrong. Testing by Northrup Grumman showed only a 20% reduction in detection range compared to a Bf 109 and no significant reduction in radar cross-section due to the reflectivity of the engines. As an expert in WWII, I can say with confidence that there is no evidence of radar absorbant materials ever being developed, tested, or deployed by anyone involved with the conflict. Additionally, a search for "tammatte" yields no results of any kind, leading me to conclude that it either never existed or you are confused. It is possible you ran across, and believed, claims that the Ho 229 used a charcoal mixture as a stealth coating. However, these claims have debunked as myth. The Smithsonian performed multiple tests on adhesive samples from the 229 and found no evidence of charcoal. Radar was effectively bleeding edge tech in WW2. Given the limited science and understanding of radar at the time, as well the limitations of materials science, it is effectively impossible for ANYONE to have developed even the most primitive of RAM. Germany especially lagged behind the Allies in materials science and radar technology, making them even less likely to have developed such an advanced material.
What was the German version of the b2 bomber? Image result for horten The Horten H. IX, RLM designation Ho 229 (or Gotha Go 229 for extensive re-design work done by Gotha to prepare the aircraft for mass production) was a German prototype fighter/bomber initially designed by Reimar and Walter Horten to be built by Gothaer Waggonfabrik.
+@1963 The B2 is three times larger than the prototype 229 and exactly the same size as the YB-35/YB-49 that was designed by Northrop before the Horten brothers started on their design. The B-2 is the redesign of the YB-35 program.
"The HO 229 was hardly packing, being only able to carry two 30 millimeter cannons" Hmm... The ability to shoot golf ball sized, flaming, chunks of metal around 200 or so times per minute is what I would call packing serious heat.... What more do you need to take down a bomber? Jesus... What did you expect a fighter aircraft to have?? Quad 88 mm artillery mounted in the nose? Holy cow... I'd love to hear this guys idea of a heavily armed aircraft. Seriously dude... I was going to subscribe... I could handle you calling the german air force the "Luftwaffle"... But, declaring two 30 mm cannon light armament? All you've done piss me off. Tell you what... Have someone that owns a 30 mm cannon shoot your car's engine and lets see if you still think 30 mm cannons are child's play.
@@greatesteverog So,,,, you're against audience members informing content creators why they aren't getting a subscriber. You're for misinformation. And you're against objective knowledge .. Cool. Now shut you're trap.
@@greatesteverog So sit in your corner and giggle then I don't care what you do. Otherwise, If I say/said anything inaccurate, we'll discuss it. Or, if facts are too boring for you, and you'd rather talk about how things make you feel. Let me just say, I dont want to further discuss your feelings. We clear?
Well, your try to pronounce Gothaer Waggonfabrik was not as bad as it could have been and surely not as bad as you thought. Only it is Horten, not Horton. And in Germany nobody says H-O, we say Ho, just like we do not say M-E for Messerschmidt, we say ME, speak "MEH".
I can only imagine how the first allied pilots would react to seeing a fighter like this ripping apart formation of bombers while being too fast for them to follow.
I hate to break this too you, bit Jack Northrup was experimenting with flying wings a decade before the Horten bros. And the B-2 was based on Northrup's previous research, not the Horten's. Northrup never saw the HO-229. It was and is still kept in a secret warehouse and only in 2010 allowed to be measured for a test model to test it's stealth capabilities. You can watch the construction and test video on RUclips.
+ John Willis The 229 was not in a secret warehouse. The government was done with it by 1947 and the Foreign Equipment aircraft that were to be kept were taken to Orchard Field, Chicago and stuck in a hangar. By 1950 many of those aircraft and the 229 had been donated to the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian kept the 229 in a wooden container in poor storage conditions (including outside) until the 1970s until it was finally moved into inside storage. This is why it is such rotten mess of dry rot and fungus today.
@@FiveCentsPlease Funny, I could have sworn we went to outside D.C. to photograph and take measurements from it for the Northrup model shop. I don't know, maybe you know better not being there and all.
Troy Tempest: Some pronunciation tips - North-rop not North-rope. H-O not Ho 229. Göring - Ger-ring, 1000kph - 625mph not 620. I'm glad you're deferring to metric and then Imperial. Reimar Horton, in German you always pronounce the second vowel, so Ri (rye) mar. 2 cannons not two machine guns. The Germans did know the British had radar during the Battle of Britain, they attacked the radar towers often. Junkers is Yunkers (J pronounced Y), W is pronounced V. A squadron is 16 planes, one squadron would not have had any realistic effect on the US bomber fleet. They would have needed hundreds of them. Hope you do a video on the Me 163 Komet, worlds first, and only, operational rocket fighter! Hail!
Sorry for these mistakes :) I have learned for next time!
Yes they just keep getting better at one point we just might think it's real
You missed 'Ho IX, as 'Aitch Eye Ex' instead of 'Aitch Nine' ie Roman Numerals.
I might also add that two 30mm cannons being called "hardly packing" a huge understatement considering that in testing the mk 108 was able to cause critical damage with only a few shots. Though I do understand that there is a subjective argument to be made on whether multiple smaller calibre machine guns would have been better considering mass on target.
It’s alright!
I'd like to try some of those Luftwaffles...they sound delicious.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who had to do a rewind and hear that again.
Luftwaffles with chicken with maple syrup and whipped cream those are the best dang Germans always coming up with the craziest concoction
I like my Luftwaffles with fresh blueberries, a big dip of vanilla ice cream and sweet maple syrup. 😆
Bruh unfunny as hell
@@coco_killua3057 unlike your genitals, yo ex said they funny as hell
A 30mm mineshell has the equivalent in explosives of a hand grenade. There were tests done by the allies. A single hit on a smaller plane like a fighter was always listed as "lethal" or "probably lethal". Even on heavy bombers, a 30mm mineshell caused severe damage to the structure and ripped parts off. Naturally with the lower cadence and less ammo carried, they'd more often be used against large targets. 30mm guns were ideal for intercepting bomber formations.
Hence some German aircraft adapted as/for interceptor role carried the MK-103 in gunpods while others carried the -108 internally.
Specifically the testing was done on a Bristol Blenheim, pre war British bomber
A-10 Warthog be Like
The point is the technology was far superior.
@@dennis17116 Hello. I would like to let everyone know that, the H-229, is not THE Nazi secret weapon or a lot of you may call it. Yes the developement of this aircraft is very real, but It is a cover up to what the Nazis were actually planning under the surface.
"Hardly packing"
*Twin 30mm machine cannons capable of blasting an aircraft in twain with mine shells*
Just machine guns ya hurred
@@alexander1485 Pardon, 30mm is in fact a cannon caliber. The german nomenclature use MK to denote a machine cannon (or at least that is the literal translation) compared to what would be described as a machine gun (which in german nomenclature was below 15mm, although maybe one of the 20mm cannons used MG in its designation)
MK = MaschinenKannone MG = MaschinenGewehr, pretty simple
@@IshijimaKairo Thanks m8, I just didn't want to butcher the spelling of maschinen because I... don't speak german lol
none Horten flying wing was armed and only some prototypes did fly, all the rest is pure invention...and the 30mm german air cannon was pretty bad: low accuracy, low reliazbility, the 20mm Hispano Suiza HS404 (french design cannon (use on Morane 406 and Dewoitine D520, firing trough propeller shaft), adopted from the Brits with some mods to fit in the wings) was MUCH better...
Really cool vid man, the 3d renders are getting better and better each day! Would be cool to see the 229s bigger brother. The ho xviii
Wait till the end of the video
Ah yes the Amerika Bomber.
So the 229.
@@halogeek6 nah, it was hortens entry into the "amerkia bomber" project, competing with messerchmidts me264 and foke wulfs modified-fw200, it resembled a 229 but significantly larger
@@px1_ yeah I just got done reading up on it. Not afraid to admit when I was wrong.
Very detailed proud to see these channels which show everything in detail and also explain in detail
even though he gives out incorrect data?
I suggest watching Military Aviation History on the HO 229 as his information is correct
Sadly this guy keeps referring to data thats false
It's definitely an interesting and fun channel but sad and annoying when he uses bad sources
I think that the narrator woefully underestimated Jack Northrop and actually gravely insulted hum. History is filled with inventors developing the same idea at about the same time who were unaware of each other's work, Both Horten and Northrop were great designers but Northrop did not obtain the Horten design data until after Germany's defeat
go to 14:45....Junkers designed a wing plane in 1910
"... hardly packing, only carrying two 30mm cannons." lol Wut? That's a very powerful armament, a single shell from either of those 2 cannons would be enough to completely destroy most fighter aircraft. At the very least, it would put a very big hole in it. These were relatively fast-firing fully automatic 30mm cannons for their day too, so even just a few seconds on target would be enough to inflict catastrophic damage. I don't think you have any grasp on just how powerful 30mm cannons are.
yeah, 30mm minengeschoß shells could nearly sever the tail of bombers in a single hit, the only reason it could be said to be not too powerful is because stuff like like the Me 262 had 4 30mm mk 108 autocannons and also 2 20mm MG151/20s
@@user-Xx0xxxxx Preach. Those M-shells were known to rip Allied bombers, and that’s coming from a single MK-108 on a Bf-109. The only downside maybe was the equally powerful blowback from the autocannons, which rumbled throughout the fuselage. They weren’t called “pneumatic hammers” by pilots for nothing.
If it's the MK103 30mm gun then it is indeed underwhelming since the build quality was kinda shit so they have to use smaller propellant causing slower muzzle velocity, if it's the MK 108 then it's a different kind of beast in itself.
@@nebunezz_r Nope, the reason for the low muzzle velocity is the short barrel, wich is only about 0,5m long, giving you about 500 m/s at the muzzle. The barrel was so short to cut down on space and and weight. The MK 108 is about 88kg lighter and 1,2m shorter than the long barreled MK 103. Both guns share the same projectile, but the MK 103 30x184 Borsig cartridge holds much more powder then the 30x90 RB MK 108 cartride, as the short barrel cannot take advanate of the additional powder. That both can use the same 30mm Mineshell also shows, that the very thin wall of that projectile was not the limiting factor for projectlie speed. For comparison, the MK 103 muzzle velocity was 860m/s compared to the 545m/s of the MK 108. This also allowed the effective use of AP Shells aggainst tanks in the MK 103.
The build quality was not the problem in the MK 108, the short barrel was. But it was also supposed to shoot at slow moving bombers, and not at fighters, thus, the low muzzle velocity. It was a trade off, and the germans traded muzzle velocity and rate of fire for the maximum bang per weapon weight.
If you want to look up a really cool late war german weapons project, look up the MG 213/20 or MG 213/30. That aircraft gun would have fixed almost problems of the earlier guns. High rpm (1000 rpm for the 20mm), light weight (56kg) and high muzzle velocity (at least for the 20mm version). That gun was in fact so good, that every one copied it :P Even the board cannon on the eurofighter (BK27) can trace itselt back to this gun.
Have a nice evening :)
Oh, and sorry for my autistic info dump, that is a subject i am really interested in.
@@13deadghosts Ho 229's sporting Mk 103s would have shredded B-17 and B-24 boxes. Then imagine them getting retrofitted with the MG 213/30s.
Glad this amazing airplane never got into the fight...
Jack Northrop was obsessed with the flying wing and was working on the design before the war. His company had a few test beds, like the flying ram, working during the war. Oh, and the XB-35 was developed all through the war. I think somebody else first designed a flying wing and Northrop and Horton just happened to be working on parallel projects. Kind of like Goddard and von Braun and the Russian rocket scientist whose name I can't spell.
Difference is, the horten brothers got their plane flying stable without the assistance of modern secondary computer systems
@@Presbiter So did Northrop… ever heard of the xb35 and yb49?
@@BrapBrapDorito So did he?
Well you might want to look up those two planes again...and chances are high that you will come across a section about technical issues those two planes had in particular...
I know about the technical issues, but those did fly. Also don’t act like the 229 didnt have technical issues too. Nearly every early flying wing had trouble flying, 229 included. Even our modern flying wings like the B2, B21 and the XB47 drone are still inherantly unstable and need constant adjustments from the fly by wire systems to keep them in the air.
@@BrapBrapDorito Look man, that is exactly my point. Those Horten brothers sure had also tech difficulties, but they pulled an amazing thing, that has never been done again in aviation since they did it... they got their tailless plane stable without modern flight assisting systems.
That looks like it would fit into Ace Combat if you replaced the cockpit with a drone control system.
I love it!
It's even happening now.
Much gets made about the.Third Reich’s various technological advancements, particularly it’s aircraft innovations. But let me relieve you of the notion that, if only they had entered service, it would have altered the outcome of the conflict. Short of the Reich developing atomic weapons, (which they weren’t), they were doomed. Not V weapons or jet technology was ever going to be sufficient to overcome the manufacturing advantages that the Allies possessed nor the shear numbers of boots on the ground that the Red Army had.. Suffice to say, that also lacked the one essential ingredient of any offensive enterprise; leadership. Goering was largely nursing his morphine delusions and preening over his stolen art; and hitler was equally deluded and in the final analysis, a corporal trying to manage the task of several field Marshalls. Their lack or resources, particularly oil, and their increasing reliance on slave labor to build their aircraft and missiles was all but a tacit admission of failure. They were doomed from Stalingrad forward.
Still insane that they were essentially 50 years ahead of even the United States. The B2, which is very similar, didn't come out until 1997. 50 years is absolutely indescribably HUGE. Very, very scary to think about what they could have done if they had the means. And this isn't even mentioning the prototype spacebomber, the Silbervogel.
@@scottkrafft6830 Where do you get this 50 years nonsense. Look at the flying wing bomber the Hortons were claiming to be trying to produce. Not even a prototype. The Nazis might, with a massive expenditure of resources, managed to design and build an aircraft to match the B-29. Maybe.
The Me-262 had performance characteristics that exceeded that of the Gloster Meteor, except in reliability and service requirements. An Me-262 returning from flight would need significant maintenance before it could fly again. Gloster Meteors were famous for being able to land, receive new ammunition and fuel, and take off again.
The Allied technology comes off less flashy because the Allies were not throwing prototypes into production, they were throwing well engineered equipment into mass production. Because they fielded them in such numbers and they worked so reliably, the B-29 seems like a regular routine aircraft. But it was one of the most advanced aircraft in the world (perhaps the most). The development of the B-29 consumed such research and development resources that it might be considered a second Manhattan Project all its own.
But where Allied technology really shines is in the Battle of the Atlantic.. You put resources into where you need technology. For the Allies, it was in countering the u-boat threat. In 1943 Germany introduced snorkels that would allow diesel engines on u-boats to be run while the submarine was submerged, in an effort to cut down on u-boat losses. Didn't matter much. Advanced aircraft mounted radar along with other technological advances (like homing torpedoes) had doomed the u-boats. Shipping losses were falling rapidly while u-boats were being lost about as fast as they could be produced (and faster than replacement crews could gain experience.
If you said that Germany was even 5 years ahead of the U.S. I'd say you were exaggerating.
Germany was ahead in some technologies, behind in others.
There was no prototype Silbervogel. It was a proposed design but was considered too complex to be able to develop into a functional plane. Germany might have been able to build a Silbervogel if they had not been so short of resources and had found some way to drag the war out into the 1950's, and if the engineering challenges for the craft were not too difficult to overcome.
Much like real life, the good guys are generally doomed to fail.
@@scottkrafft6830
But they WEREN'T 50 years ahead of the U.S. They weren't even 5 years ahead. In many ways, they were a decade BEHIND the Allies.
@@iansneddon2956 you do realize the Smithsonian has one of these very planes in their aircraft collection the very first prototype was crashed on its 10th test flight two more flying example were actually built one of which is the aforementioned Smithsonian example
Again, i KNOW i'm going to be roasted for my german names in this one. I'm so sorry! Please forgive my inbox!
Yeas
It’s ok
luft waffle
"goethe wagenfabrik" is the original name of the plane construction site ^^ sometimes they give you horrible wrong written name of some places :D
I m German. You do it fine
One thing, Jack Northrop and the Horton Brothers were working on the Fling Wing concept at the same time. Jack Northrop had conceived of the idea from gliding seeds from a tree species. Neither Northrop nor the Horton Brothers knew each other. Northrop started working on the Flying Wing design long before WWII as a test bed for both passenger and military aircraft. During WWII Northrop had made several versions of all wing aircraft, including rocket powered. One design was strictly a ramming aircraft with Titanium reinforced wings designed to cut through another aircraft. Northrop had made several small single seat prototypes. One being the N9M that was restored and flying for several years. But unfortunately crashed during a practice for an airshow and was lost. There are several videos on RUclips of that Wing, here is one:
ruclips.net/video/lSf5TX_FcBw/видео.html
Though this information would help you.
BTW, there was also a French designer that made a type of flying wing that flew in the early 1900's. It wasn't a full wing though, as it still had a tail for stabilization. But it didn't have a fuselage. The pilot sat inside the wing.
yeah, most of this rarely talked about. Germany did have a lot of firsts, but the flying wing wasn't one of them, though i will admit i didn't know about the french one.
@@Wowflunky The Flying Wing has always been a fascination of mine. I think the first time I saw one was in the 1953 movie of H G Wells The War of the Worlds when I was just a kid. There are only a few short senes showing the Flying Wing, but I though it was beautiful and wondered why nothing ever came of the design.
ruclips.net/video/esqQXQ9n7u4/видео.html
Up until the internet started to get big, it was extremely hard to find any information on any of the Wings. Though I did find a model as a kid and the first book I found was in the 1980's. In that book, they say that the actual weight that the Wing could carry was still classified information and the USAF C-5 Cargo aircraft could carry less than half that. But there's information out now that has several weight lifting figures. How much of that is true, I don't know. A few years ago I picked up 2 big model kits of the X/YB-35 and the YB-49 from AMT at a local Hobby Store. I'm trying to get the model of the Horton HO 299. Ironically the same model designation of the Boeing B-17 (Model 299) when it was first designed.
But since the F-117 was developed, the Flying Wing design of Jack Northrop was re-investigated and the B-2 was developed, Soon the second version, the B-21 will start entering the Air Force.
But you are right, that Germany was the first to develop many things. Though the British and the Germans were working on the Jet engine at the same time, the Germans had the better design. The British, Whittle Jet Engine was a centrifugal jet. Much like how a Turbocharger in a car compresses air by spinning it out to the side. I worked a few T-33 Jets that used that type of jet engine, the J-33 engine, while I was in the USAF.
One of my favorite German Jets was the HE-162 Volksjäger. Though there were problems, mainly with the glue for the wooden parts, I believe it was superior to the ME-262. It just came out at the very end of the war to be any good.
BTW, the Italians made a Jet aircraft just Before WWII, It was more of a deducted fan than a jet engine. They used a piston engine to turn the compressor. It did fly and Italy had a few in service at the start of the war. But the performance was bad. Check that one out sometime, it is a real oddity that worked but is even less known than the Flying Wing.
There was plenty of flying wing aircraft back really until the dawn of aviation. In effect the wright brothers aircraft is a flying wing, because it have a canard its also in effect tailless, but not canard less.
What confuse it a bit is that people assume that flying wing is tailless, that is not really always the case. Northrop had made a tailed flying wing already back in 1928. That wasn´t that strange of a concept.
In 1917 the Burgess-Dunne biplane was sort of tailless also, and kind of sort of a flying wing.. or wings.
In 1931 Lippisch made the Delta I a sort of blended wing hybrid that was tailless.
Both Northrop's early wings had fins added, making them not true tailless flying wings. The YB-35 sort of looks like a mix of a Lippisch delta I and the 1928 Northrop flying wing. Because the Delta I was not only pre war, but also pre Nazi Germany, there is a good chance that Northrop know about it.
Its no secret that the Horten brothers was inspired by Lippisch.. both being German.
Comparing YB35 and HO 229, its really the tail... sort of, of the aircraft that is diffrent. Most other parts predates second world war.
@@EIBBOR2654 holy crap, i was not expecting that much, thanks for the link though gonna check it out here in a bit.
@@matsv201 i knew that there were many planes that fit the flying wing description but i always simplified it by saying if it had vertical stabilizers (tails) it wasn't a flying wing. Yes over simplification as there are gray areas in everything...but it did allow for the it's a wing and it's damn close to a wing folders. that's why in my book there are very few actual flying wings.
The term "bell shape" refers to the lift distribution of the wing not the actual shape of the wing. It is what makes it possible to fly without vertical stabilizers.
The very nice german word for it is:
Glockenauftriebsverteilung
It's brilliant too.
The First flying wing was the Northrop N-1M
@@WaukWarrior360 not really
@@toastyovens8777 It's an objective fact. So yes really
@@toastyovens8777 The N-1M flew in 1939. The Ho. 229 flew in 1944
YB-49: I am the first jet flying wing!
Horton Ho 229: *“am I a joke to you?”*
Almost everyone: *y e s*
"Yes. Yes you are".
its the YB-35 & flew in 1941 , the YB-39 is a variant u idiot , check Northrop N9M
@@deadly_0125 jeez dude it’s a joke, stop getting mad
@@deadly_0125 horten brother prototypes where in the air though all the 30s.
@Brian Roome that joke almost defeated 7 world powers, provided the technology for all the cold war, the moon landing, transonic flight, fuel refinement, international mass transport, nuclear reactors + bombs and intercontinental flight.
6:12 I know what you mean but for every German it sounds like "Luftwaffel" which means "air waffle" in german
THANK YOU! I thought I was the only one hearing this
I thought he said it on purpose. I am not even german :D
Sounds very long light and fluffy, absolutely delicious
@@Rose_Butterfly98 😂
Oh, what a shame, I don't have a waffle licence....
Proud to say that they were developed by the two Horten brothers (from my hometown) and test flown on the Hangelar airfield, one of the oldest airfields in the world, which is just down the road from where I live and where the GSG-9 (Germany's anti-terror unit) is also headquartered.
Cool! 👍
In San Diego California you can see the Horten 229 model that was created for the History show that was about its supposed stealth characteristics. It's a impressive model that shows how large the fighter/bomber was. Kinda also gives a idea how it would look like in the air as well.
Germans did know about radar as they also had radars themselves. What they did not know was Downing air defence system that would guide British fighters towards German bomber formations.
Yes but they didnt know how to nullify Radar. they didnt have the knowhow to create a stealth plane, nor the money, time, equipment, manpower or really anything.
@@felixschrider9037testing conducted by Lockheed and Northrup confirmed that the Ho-229 had a significant reduction in frontal RCS and would have given the aircraft a tactical advantage against British detecton radar systems..
Jack Northrop was fascinated with flying wings before ever knowing of teh Ho-229
Nice WW2 video! Horton Ho 229 is an AWESOME choice. The animations are getting more and more realistic!
It's called Horten not Horto
@@Pgb633 my bad
The way you pronounce "Junkers" makes it feel like that company specialized in dumpster diving and building cutting-edge tech out of scrap metal
And what about the "Looft Waffle"... 😂
That intro was sick! 😀👍
I was lucky enough to see a hull of the Ho-229 and other german flying wings in Washington, D.C. It was so amazing!
Edit: It is in the Smithsonian museum! They also have the Enola Gay, the DO-335, and a komet.
Did they display the Northrop N-1M (the first flying wing, not the Ho. 229) or any other advanced American aircraft besides a B-29?
@@WaukWarrior360 yeah, there was some F-14 and late cold war jets, and a gyrocopter? (Plane with helicopter rotor) a flying platform, and I think the N-1- I might have a picture
@@WaukWarrior360 neighter of the two is the first flying wing. The hortense build there first true flying wing, the horten h-1 in 1934. Turing the röhn glider competition of that year that plane completed a flight lasting 7 hours.
And even that plane most likely can not claim to be the first flying wing, depending on your definition of a flying wing
@@blu5021 The H-229, was impressively thought out design in the 40s. But it is far from being called the Nazis secret weapon. This wing aircraft now plays a role of a cover up of something more cunning.
Content is so good, keep up the great work man!
That’s why the “tail” is called a “vertical stabilizer”…
@Jimjimmyjames Smith two words for you: “differential drag”.
But unfortunately you can only do that using computers.
When the pilot presses the “rudder” pedal in a B-2 he’s basically just telling the computer nervous system that he wants to yaw the plane. Then those systems decide how to go about it. Moving different control surfaces, maybe even the engines, to fulfill the pilot input
The use of wood for construction was due to the shortage of aluminium and skilled labour to work with. The mentioned stealth wing was a sandwich construction with charcoal and wood flour in the middle of the sandwich with wood forming also the outer shell. But this wing wasn`t built due limited time, as they had to skip the wet wing concept, due to the lack of fuel resistant glue. The Horten IX is comparable to the Mosquito regarding stealth and construction material.
Low drag was one goal of the Horten brothers. But to make their wings controlable they choose to use a bell shaped lift distribution, which produced more drag than an eliptical lift distirbution. So there were no gains here, but the Horten wings were among the first flying wings which were controlable.
The redesign from Gotha Waggonfabrik was nothing major. The major redesign occured before, as the dimensions from the engine changed from 600 mm in diameter to 800 mm height and 600 mm wide due to changes in the placing of accessories. The wing span was increased from 16 to 16.8 m and the wing thickness rose to. The critical mach number was expected at 0.75 and the stall speed of V 2 was 150 km/h.
The characteritic form of the trailing edge (called in the video "bell shaped") was due to the effect that a swept wing produces less lift in the middle as expected (Mittenefekt), and as a simple solution they increased the wing area in the middle.
I just took an old book (Nurflügel, ISBN 3-900310-09-02) from the shelf to look after some of the mentioned details above.
I took photos of the horten through the large windows that separate the museum and restoration center at the Udver Hazy museum Duelles. . This was three years ago. I was shocked I thought it was still in storage.
When I went in 2017 it was openly on display out in the open area next to the Arado jet bomber. Glad to hear they are restoring it
@@SCRB1GR3D98 I have got to get back there. I just want a better camera.
In a biography of the Horten Brothers that I read, it said they only joined the Nazi Party so their designs could see competition. If you were not a member, than you could not compete. They also admitted to "following" the exploits of American flying wing pioneer, Jack Northrop, in all of the aviation magazines that they read.
True, the Northrop N-1M was built before the Ho. 229
@@WaukWarrior360 Wtf no one cares stop spamming it
By far my most favourite experimental WWII warplane next to the J7W Shinden. There's something so menacing about a flat slab of a wing travelling at subsonic speeds before decimating a WWII Allied heavy bomber within seconds. In an era where jet engines only lasted about 25 hours before needing a replacement, and mechanical tricks to carefully balance a plane without any help from computers, the Ho-229 was a very radical wonder weapon that surpasses the Me-262 in almost every aspect.
Today the aerodynamic benefits of a blended wing design is known within the aerospace industry, that contractors such as Boeing and Lockheed swore by it and developed both manned and unmanned flying wings. I would love you to make a video on the B-21 Raider some day, which honestly looks like a 21st Century version of the Ho-229 that's just as big as the B-2 Spirit.
The first flying wing was actually the Northrop N-1M and the Norhtrop XB-35 was also more advanced than the Ho. 229.
Meanwhile the P-80 shooting star was a superior jet fighter compared to the Me 226 and the B-29 was the most advanced aircraft of WW2
@@WaukWarrior360 More advanced? Nah man, more like different engineering solutions.
As much as I love Northrop he used a completely different aerodynamic technique to solve a tailless design; he used a butterfly flap that would deploy automatically when the plane banked beyond a set of pre-determined angles instead of relying on very precise (and very German) calculations for a teardrop-shaped trailing edge like the Horten brothers did. Flying wings have a special place in my heart for how radical and clean it is.
Also, the P-80 was single-engined with the engine buried inside its fuselage, making for a clean aerodynamic design but a complicated maintenance especially early jet engines which would typically last about 30 hours before needing an entire replacement. It wasn’t as fast as the Jumo-004 powered Me-262 but it was more agile.
Like I said, different aerodynamic approach.
@@Nafeels Even with a Jumo-004 Engine the Me 262 had a top speed of 550mph compared to the P-80s 600mph.
In addition to that the P-80 also had a longer range, higher flight ceiling, was more maneuverable as you mentioned, had more payload capacity, double the armament etc. Also considering that the J-33 engine was more reliable than the Jumo-004 and jet engines are serviced at airfields instead of in combat environments the ease of access to the engine isn't as important.
@@Nafeels The "teardrop" trailing edge of the Ho. 229 did not lend itself to greater aerodynamic stability. The Ho. 229 was to use elevons and spoiler as controls where as the Northrop designs consolidated the elevons and spoilers into "clamshell" controls. In addition they could be employed automatically as you said. Further the Ho. 229 never even flew.
Also, if "very precise, very German calculations" were a real thing then German equipment from the war wouldn't have such a poor reputation for reliabilty.
As they say, "if Germany invented the paperclip, it would have 11 different moving parts".
@@Nafeels So yeah man, more advanced.
I just wanna say your team's animation skills are always on point, please tell them that they are appreciated. Some channels make cheesy 2d animations but yall are good
considering its just me... thank you! I do it all myself
1. The Horten was to be armed with cannons, not machine guns.
2. Aircraft YAW, not Yawn!
I was thinking of saving this video on my liked playlist so I could guarantee something nice to watch while eating dinner, but screw it lol I can’t resist watching a Found And Explained video right away.
lol, i'm the same but managed to resist and enjoyed watching it with my lunch :)
The earliest example of a functional flying wing that I can think of are the ones designed by John W. Dunne, the D.5 through D.7 series especially, which was back in 1910 in England.
The Northrop N-1M was the first true flying wing.
@@WaukWarrior360 Yet evidence d8sputes this. I know Americans always want to be first, but the facts say otherwise.
@@owenshebbeare2999 Except it's an objective fact that the N-1M was the first true flying wing.
No Fueslage, no tail and was under its own power.
@@owenshebbeare2999 You're faulty presupposition is predicated on the misnotion that you have any credible evidence to dispute what I've said and the mistaken belief that I'm an American.
@@owenshebbeare2999 My refutation of the falsehood is motivated by the fact that Germans and those synthetic to the Nazi cause always want to pretend Germany was more technologically advanced than is evidenced
6:14 the “luftwaffle”
They have one of these in the Udvar Hazy air and space museum in northern Virginia. It is a genuinely amazing piece to look at. Both for how it looks and it’s size. It literally looks like a toy in size compared to all the conventional WW2 planes. However it also looks positively otherworldly compared to the conventional aircraft. Truly amazing.
A thing to note, people have checked the Horten's radar signature and found it wasn't THAT different from normal aircraft at the time
It was reduced by about 20%, which isn't negligeable.
@@user-xu2pi6vx7o Okay, then what I mean is they used old radar technology and say no noticeable difference in rate of detection
Actually your wrong. Northrop did a radar test on the aircraft and found that if a horton was flying close to the surface, combined with its speed and reduced detection, allied aircraft at Britain would have only roughly 2 and a half minutes to respond which wouldn't have been enough time. Flying close to the surface was a strategy employed by the German airforce.
At 7:45 you state that the high aspect ration of the Horton's wing contributes to its stability against stalling. Not so. The major design feature which does this is the sweep back of the wings which gives a horizontal control moment. In addition washing out at the wing tips causes the inboard wing to stall whilst the wing tips are still not stalled and so can continue controlling the aircraft. Also the the centre of the wing will fall causing the plane to descend, picking up speed, and emerge from the stall.
A high aspect ratio wing is indeed more efficient than a low aspect ratio, but aerodynamic effects are not the be all and end all of aircraft design. A high aspect ratio wing is inherently less structurally rigid than a low aspect ration and will need to be built with more structure to make it rigid enough.
It is important to remember that a flying wing design could not be made practical until the advent of computerised control systems which could not only deal with aerodynamic control inefficiencies, but also with structural flexibility.
And she is a beautiful airplane! Bring her back!!😭
Ho 229 Flying Wing is only one of so many innovation from Germany during ww-2. The flying wing is a breakthrough in aerodynamic.
Other innovation is Messerschmitt Me-262 the world first operational jet fighter, V-1 Flying bomb and V-2 ballistic missile.
Is no one gonna talk about the Captain America reference 🤣? "Failed due to its massive Vibranium..." Cuts out 🤣
This old design is still deadly.. Has room to be engineered to be more efficient
I would like to fly a slightly modernized version of this, and if the engines can be made more fuel efficient why not made it to civilian use?
It was deadly back then to any pilot unlucky enough to fly one, fortunately only one experimental version ever flew briefly and of course crashed killing the test pilot
Can we get an episode on the BV-141? That was a very strange asymmetric plane
Pity this was spoilt by the pronunciation and naming errors. The original Horten IX plane was built in an autobahn maintenance facility on the outskirts of Gottingen. The building still stands and I visited it a few years ago. By then there were no workers there that were old enough to know anything other than a plane had been built there. I took my jet turbine powered model Ho IX there and took some photos. Prandtl was a professor at Gottingen in the 1940's, there was a wind tunnel there are a university aerodynamics facility. As others have explained he was the man that gave the theoretical explanation of the reason that the Horten deigns flew. David Myhra's excellent book " The Horten Brothers and their all-wing aircraft" explains how the Horten brothers developed their ideas from models to full size gliders. It appears that Prandtl didn't believe that a flying wing would be stable from the theory as it existed at the time. Apparently he was told about the Horten brothers successful designs and immediately got hold of them at the Autobahn workshop and they arranged a demonstration of one of their earlier designs at Gottingen airfield. He was amazed that the brothers had a very stable design and it was against current aircraft design theory. In effect they had got there by trial and error over many iterations of designs and not by following theory dogma.They found stability improved with wing tip twist and the flying wing had increased amounts of twist compared to 'normal wing designs of the period'. Turning the plane needs a differential aileron movement and the Ho IX used Friese ailerons that caused more drag to assist turning.
Interesting that is the some of the approach taken by Space X in the design of their rockets. Failure can yield up much in the design of new ideas and perhaps allow a leap forward. In the book there are some wonderful contemporary photos of the making of the Ho 2-A in 1934/5 in the family house in Bonn with the wing tip poking over the top of the dining table with plates and food on it!
Going back to the Horten aircraft my own model was designed by some German friends of mine used a sophisticated computer model. This helped ensure that it would stand a good chance of flying, but very few models of the Ho IX have flown successfully. We had over 30 flights but our confidence in the design was shaken when one day the plane just tumbled when it suffered a complete flow breakdown over the wing and it literally tumbled. Fortunately it was flying high enough that eventually control was re-established. One thing we found was that large nose wheel being at the front of the plane tended to steer the plane and we had a rule not to lower retracts until we were on finals. Interestingly a similar order was made with the full size. Personally I think the original design may have had flaws that may have gone against it.
Eric Brown the well known British test pilot knew many of the leading German aircraft designers of WW2 as well as Goering. He was based in Germany before the start of the war. He flew the Horten IV glider and would like to have flown the Gotha Go 229 but the plane was not developed enough to risk finishing and flying it. The engines were unprotected and very close to the pilot. Eric was the only British pilot to fly the Me 163 under power and he flew all the german jet designs at the close of the War.
John
Vne is a structural limitation, has noting to do with the ability to cruise at 1000kph. The Horten did not use the bell shape lift distribution Al Bowers talked about. The Bell shape was primarily the innovation of Prandtl, not the Hortens.
As a German, i can say that your pronounciation was actually pretty good
Makes me think you are not German at all. The pronunciation is atrocious.
Is there any chance you could do a video (or series of vids) on what is call Luft' 46? It's very much inline with this and your other types of video's.
love the doco mate, just bought a model of a 229, its a beauty
Funny that many of the first UFO sightings reported in the US after WII and before Roswell described flying wings type of aircraft. Hell I even remember a former pilot who draw what he saw and I remember thinking it looked almost exactly as the Horten 229!!
Edit: the name of the pilot was Kenneth Arnold, and he reported his sighting in 1947, so it can definitively be a sighting of a test aircraft like the Ho 229!
Fascinating story I was in the United States, Air Force auxiliary, and I specifically study, advanced and unique aircraft design and let me tell you the US Air Force. Will try anything There’s a lot of crazy stuff that people don’t know about if you can think of it they have probably already tried it. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least, if they built an exact working model of a Ho.229 and we’re flying it.
@@afterlife697 I think the story was that they brought the prototype from Germany for testing after the war, or built one from the original plans.
I remember they also tried a literal flying saucer the Avro VZ-9 Avrocar. In a way it is also fascinating to think that most UFO may be experimental aircraft made here on Earth!
Edit: the US indeed captured a prototype of the Ho 229, which now is in storage in the Smithsonian!
@@mafiousbj I completely agree with you in fact, the educated theory amongst us aviators is that the Roswell crash was an experimental spyplane, and the government created the alien story to cover up for the experimental testing with it.
Great video, would love to see even more of the German WWII planes done in upcoming videos!
The Northrop N-1M was the first flying wing.
Here's a good playlist I've been compiling that has alot of advanced American WW2 aircraft
that Junkers design you showed was not a flying wing. it was a forward canard configuration with vertical stabilizers.
A woman I knew, now deceased, was involved in the project to build the flight simulator for the B-2
ima sum some stuff up that's is incorrect through out all of this
0:56 the statement that the Ho 229 was undetectable on radar is outright incorrect the ho 229 was perfectly detectable on radar even when Northrup tested it along with they only make it off wood while the real ho 229 had steal tubes going through it make it less radar efficient also im pretty sure the horents whole center "fuselage" was made of metal
1:23 the statement "the original flying wing" is incorrect its may have been the first jet powered one but not the first the first one was actually N-1 M made in 1929 ( first flying one from memory but there where designs that were alot older ) also they made loads of gliders before hand like heaps not just hornets may i add
2:00 ok im not to sure about this but if someone can correct me here please do. those part can still create lift its life putting your hand out the window of a car while its moving your had will be forced up but i will agree it wont be near as effective as the aerofoil
4:50 thank you for correcting your self
6:40 i have not clue about the competition thing but i would like to add at the time Herman Goering would almost except anything placed on his desk he even exepted a rocket powered plane for god sake and a ph**king tornado gun
11:20 oh this statement i can kinda agree with but compared to other jet aircraft at the time the ho 229 had the average ( german comparison ) amout of armerment the me 163 had dule 30mm the he 162 had dule 30mm's but sometimes had those changed out for dule 20mm's which was more common dule to lacking ammo for the 30's the me 262 often had 4 30mm's but i will had more than one round of the hei-t ammunition was enough to take out an aircraft although fire rate bullet velocity was extremally slow
13:04 i would never call the german late war planes cutting edge more hopeful rushed and poorly made through nothing but a crippled county
13:25 Northrup didn't grab his ideas from the horten brothers he had been making flying wings log before
14:15 ok the idea that Northrup got the design idea for the B2 from the Ho 229 is extremally incorrect its more likely taken from the xb-35 as they had never heard of the ho 229 till they were asked about it which is when they started testing the radar signature on it
13:35 he didnt have the idea ether there where designs for flying wings all the way back to right after the Wright Brothers
16:13 cough cough me 262's and the he 162
im not going to nitpick on pronunciation as ive seen that through all the comments and ive seen your correct you slef ine the comments
also please correct me on any of these statements :)
Your animations get better from time to time
i love that u call it Luftwaffle >_< it sounds to awesome * ^^ * but honestly, the Ho-229 was pretty damn impressive for its time, had they had it earlier and had time to work out some of its kinks, it had prob made a major difference in the war... thank god they didnt
Gothaer Waggonfabrik: you were very close!!! Congratz!
Dieses Luftwaffel killt mich die ganze Zeit 😂
Good Video!
The Ho-XVIII had 2 extra versions ... I think I already know what to do in my next woodworking class.
The HO-8 winged bomber is another fascinating aircraft intended to be an 'Amerika bomber'. It's essentially an upscaled horten -229 designed to carry a nuclear payload.
Doubt it was designed to carry a nuclear payload since Germany was nowhere near developing a nuclear weapon, let alone figure out delivery.
I've actually gotten to see the surviving example of this aircraft at the udvar-hazy center. It was so cool.
"Luftwaffle"
Ok we're done.
Not too bad, your pronunciation, my friend
The fact that the Horten brothers were capable of envisioning such a design in the era of early jet engines, was just proof that they were visionaries. Like, damn...
they made they first flying wing glider in the late 20s
Not really, flying wing designs go back to 1910 at least. There were French ones, Russian ones, British ones and American ones and probably a few more.
Henschel Hs 130 might also be an good plane to feature in the future - Highest flying plane in WW2
You make it sound like Jack Northrop copied the Horten's flying wing concept. In reality Northrop was Working on flying wings as early as 1929, as were other designers.
The Wehraboos want to believe that the Nazis had super-advanced technology… they didn’t. Others were often working on the same or better, they just didn’t rush it into service because they weren’t desperate.
@@Justanotherconsumer These are the same people who believe if the Maus was fielded Germany would somehow win despite the lack of materials Germany was facing by 1944.
@@Mark_Lou "Maus would work"
*Insert P47 dive* How about no
@@Justanotherconsumer C'mon there's replete objective evidence that the German's aeronautical design and engineering was a vast cut above their contemporaries elsewhere, there's just way way way too many examples of this to posit your opinion, and it's not just restricted to aeronautics as you well know. You're sounding a little catty and jelly, give the Übermensch their due credit.. 😚
@@nebunezz_r Not saying Maus would change the war but there was very little chance CAS would actually do something to enemy tanks in WW2.
Did no one notice the error at 2:22?
"Yawning" instead of "Yawing".
Otherwise - a great video!
the intro to this video is freaking amazing, love seeing how your renders have advanced. Fun fact, did you know the stealth aspects of the Ho 229 were actually accidental?
Did you know the Northrop N-1M was the first flying wing?
The HO was not a stealth aircraft
I love aviation videos with animations. F&E and Mustard are my go to channels.
Germanys technology / engineering always have been the best.
Lol nah
Germany has always been a leader in aerospace technology and is currently the largest manufacturer of jet aircraft in Europe.
There is anthor Horten Gotha Flying wing called P60C redesigned by Dr. Huehnerjager you can watch it at Rechlin Germany. Dr. Huhnerjaeger enhanced the horten wing to an easier to produce and easier field maintenance. The Dr. Huehnerjager P60C design used the engines in a vertical mounting under and above the wing fuselage.
ME-110 is not called "me." It's called "M"-"E." FW-190 is likewise called "F"-"W." So I would pronounce HO in Alphabet, "H"-"O." Besides, "ho" sounds like a bad word to American English speakers.
That last point is something that Americans do all the time: pronouncing acronyms and abbreviations as words, so really your tender Yank sensibilities and triggers are irrelevant- and Germans pronounce it as often as not and Christmasmust be hard for you too...think about it. Also the proper designation for both the 109 and 110 is Bf-, not Me-, so accuracy and depth here wasn't a big selling point for this presentation.
@@owenshebbeare2999 I wish you the best in your endeavors. Being young is a good thing; you have the initiative to actually do things and make things happen.
A radical but beautiful fighter aircraft design, one of my favourite.
Did you jsut say Luftwaffel? Air waffle? hahahahaIts Luft waffe like air weapon
She went world's first stealth plane if she can fly
Is the Ho 229 still in the Mesonian museum storage, or does it have its own exhibit yet?
Edit: I commented this before I saw the end of the video.
It is visible, visited a while ago- however, it is just a hull
@@blu5021
I'm pretty sure that they also have the wings, but they may not have wanted to reattach them considering how old the aircraft is.
@@faragar1791 the wings where burned, the only reason they know how it was shaped its because blueprints where captured for the v1 variant.
@@faragar1791 good point!
I saw it in 2018, the wings were with it but not put on
20-21st century: Flying wing
22nd century: Flying saucers
bell shaped lift distribution
Very nice video the ho 229 its one of my favorite aircraft designs and i hope you can tell the story about his bigger brother the ho 18 and like dusty miller say i hope the L-133 come in a near future but that will be your decision thank your for doing this type of content
Point of fact:
The HO-229 was NOT a stealth aircraft, nor was it "difficult" to detect. Modern tests on the aicraft using radar emitting wavelengths similar to the U.S. Chain Home radar system of WWII found only a 20% reduction in detection range compared to the Bf-109; and that was with a reproduction fuselage that lacked engines, metal framework, fuel tanks, or engines.
Tests conducted by the Americans (without the RAM applied) showed no significant retroreflective structures and a very significant 50% reduction in RCS, this would have delayed detection long enough to give an effective tactical advantage... the use of RAM such as the German _Tarnmatte_ would have contributed to an additional reduction in RCS.
@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke
Against Allied Chain Home radar systems, the Ho 229 had a detection range roughly 80% that of a Bf 109. That is only a 20% reduction in detectability. Additionally, all tests were carried out on a mockup that lacked the tube truss structure and engines, the latter of which would have been highly reflective.
There were no radar absorbent materials used or planned. The charcoal material commonly cited as RAM was in fact a new adhesive that would have provided no measurable reduction in detection.
@@jfangm The tests conducted by the Americans confirmed a 50% reduction in frontal RCS against British meter band radar _without RAM_
Are you not familiar with German development of RAM during WW2 or its production and military service???
_Tarnmatte_ is the best-known example of German advancements in RAM technology that saw actual service during the war.
@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke
That is completely wrong.
Testing by Northrup Grumman showed only a 20% reduction in detection range compared to a Bf 109 and no significant reduction in radar cross-section due to the reflectivity of the engines.
As an expert in WWII, I can say with confidence that there is no evidence of radar absorbant materials ever being developed, tested, or deployed by anyone involved with the conflict. Additionally, a search for "tammatte" yields no results of any kind, leading me to conclude that it either never existed or you are confused.
It is possible you ran across, and believed, claims that the Ho 229 used a charcoal mixture as a stealth coating. However, these claims have debunked as myth. The Smithsonian performed multiple tests on adhesive samples from the 229 and found no evidence of charcoal.
Radar was effectively bleeding edge tech in WW2. Given the limited science and understanding of radar at the time, as well the limitations of materials science, it is effectively impossible for ANYONE to have developed even the most primitive of RAM. Germany especially lagged behind the Allies in materials science and radar technology, making them even less likely to have developed such an advanced material.
Oh boy I‘m looking forward to flying in the Luftwaffle next year
Mornin' lads
jeez... imagine being in that plane 0:04 and see this 0:08 flying past you at immense speeds. Scary
My god, I love this plane
Prototypes were called Ho-IX by Horten. The production version by Gothaer Waggonfabrik was to be called Go-229...😉
A LUFTWAFFLE WITH EXTRA NUTELLA PLS
What was the German version of the b2 bomber?
Image result for horten
The Horten H. IX, RLM designation Ho 229 (or Gotha Go 229 for extensive re-design work done by Gotha to prepare the aircraft for mass production) was a German prototype fighter/bomber initially designed by Reimar and Walter Horten to be built by Gothaer Waggonfabrik.
+@1963 The B2 is three times larger than the prototype 229 and exactly the same size as the YB-35/YB-49 that was designed by Northrop before the Horten brothers started on their design. The B-2 is the redesign of the YB-35 program.
@@FiveCentsPlease What's your point? Your comment is completely irrelevant.
Luftwaffle?You mean Luftwaffe?
I love the way you pronounce Luftwaffe 😂
My absolute favorite wwII plane
You have improved greatly
"The HO 229 was hardly packing, being only able to carry two 30 millimeter cannons"
Hmm... The ability to shoot golf ball sized, flaming, chunks of metal around 200 or so times per minute is what I would call packing serious heat.... What more do you need to take down a bomber? Jesus... What did you expect a fighter aircraft to have?? Quad 88 mm artillery mounted in the nose? Holy cow... I'd love to hear this guys idea of a heavily armed aircraft.
Seriously dude... I was going to subscribe... I could handle you calling the german air force the "Luftwaffle"... But, declaring two 30 mm cannon light armament? All you've done piss me off. Tell you what... Have someone that owns a 30 mm cannon shoot your car's engine and lets see if you still think 30 mm cannons are child's play.
My guy it ain’t that serious 😂
@@greatesteverog So,,,, you're against audience members informing content creators why they aren't getting a subscriber. You're for misinformation. And you're against objective knowledge .. Cool. Now shut you're trap.
@@dennisgreiwe2078 never said I was for misinformation 😂😂😂 I just find it funny you’re getting so worked up over this 😂😂😂
@@greatesteverog So sit in your corner and giggle then I don't care what you do. Otherwise, If I say/said anything inaccurate, we'll discuss it. Or, if facts are too boring for you, and you'd rather talk about how things make you feel. Let me just say, I dont want to further discuss your feelings. We clear?
Beautiful 👏🏻 nice work!
Well, your try to pronounce Gothaer Waggonfabrik was not as bad as it could have been and surely not as bad as you thought. Only it is Horten, not Horton. And in Germany nobody says H-O, we say Ho, just like we do not say M-E for Messerschmidt, we say ME, speak "MEH".
Jack Northrop was building flying wings before the Horten Brothers.
The Northrop N-1M was the first True flying wing
@@WaukWarrior360 What did that have to do anything with his comment and why do you keep saying this to every comment?
Good vid. Apart from the "Luftwaffle" the pronounciation was fine. Now I want some waffles...
Time for some Luf Waffle!!
I can only imagine how the first allied pilots would react to seeing a fighter like this ripping apart formation of bombers while being too fast for them to follow.
It wouldn't be this aircraft
luft waffle
I knew the Belgians were up to something.
I hate to break this too you, bit Jack Northrup was experimenting with flying wings a decade before the Horten bros. And the B-2 was based on Northrup's previous research, not the Horten's. Northrup never saw the HO-229. It was and is still kept in a secret warehouse and only in 2010 allowed to be measured for a test model to test it's stealth capabilities. You can watch the construction and test video on RUclips.
+ John Willis The 229 was not in a secret warehouse. The government was done with it by 1947 and the Foreign Equipment aircraft that were to be kept were taken to Orchard Field, Chicago and stuck in a hangar. By 1950 many of those aircraft and the 229 had been donated to the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian kept the 229 in a wooden container in poor storage conditions (including outside) until the 1970s until it was finally moved into inside storage. This is why it is such rotten mess of dry rot and fungus today.
@@FiveCentsPlease Funny, I could have sworn we went to outside D.C. to photograph and take measurements from it for the Northrup model shop. I don't know, maybe you know better not being there and all.
very nice
The Northrop N-1M was the first flying wing.
@@WaukWarrior360 holy shit stop
@@nebunezz_r nah
It would be cool to just see these old weapons on your channel in a big battle. Like this jet fight American bomber and fighters