F.A.Q Section - Ask your questions here :) Q: Do you take aircraft requests? A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:) Q: How do you decide what aircraft gets covered next? A: Supporters over on Patreon now get to vote on upcoming topics such as overviews, special videos, and deep dives. Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others? A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both.
Cant await to see the H or Ho IX V2 or Ho229, Go229 Video, i live in Göttingen were the Kommando Horten was stationed they flew alot of Horten designs here , H VII V1 with Props, H XII Glider and the Ho or H IX V1 Glider, the H or Ho IX V1 Glider and H or Ho IX V2 (Ho229) Jet were both built here at Kommando Horten IX Göttingen , V2 was then send to Oranienburg via Rail from Göttingen Air Base for Testflights. Theres a good Book about Horten designs from Hans-Peter Dabrowski "Deutsche Nurflügel bis 1945" (Die Motor und Turbinenflugzeuge der Gebrüder Horten) PODZUN-PALLAS with alot of good fotos
I remember hearing a very compelling theory regarding the proliferation of Nazi "Wunderwaffe" towards the end of the war. Basically (and I'm aware I'm generalising here), most of the engineers weren't actually that bothered about developing something that actually worked. They were more concerned with developing something that looked like it might work, with just a little more investigation. The main point of the exercise being that if they (and their staff) were engaged in the development of amazing technology that might just save the Reich, then they were less likely to be conscripted into an emergency Home Defence regiment, or sent to the Eastern Front.
@@malcolmjcullen It's one of many German high tech weapons that actually reached production and operational service. The Allies wasted vast sums of resources developing weapons that never saw service before the war ended, including dozens of aircraft that never achieved any success or impact on the war.
First time seeing this plane? :D It's my favourite, especially the "A" version with the pilot in the prone position. Must be 15 years since i first saw it on "luft'46". (which is propably not a high-quality source)
I can see it from a structural perspective, massively reinforce one narrower area rather than spreading out the reinforcement which may have weighed more. Effectively it provides a keel that everything else hangs off which can be more efficient when done correctly. Do I see it as a good idea? Hell no! That opinion, however, comes from living with an aero engineer for over 40 years.
A flameout of the lower Engine on, or shortly after takeoff would send you right in to the earth. Where as an failing upper engine would turn you nose up, then the lower one would flame out and after that you would neatly die in a flaming impact..... perfect. Maybe i am to pessimistic but i wonder why they gave the engines such a big angle of attac. Usually a low mounted engine should face up to counter pich up bias. Likewise a high mounted engine should face down to counter pitch down. And this plane is the complete opposite.
I much prefer the Horton. The engines buried in the wing/fuselage made for a much cleaner, nicer look. With more time to develop I'm sure that they could have created a frame that was sufficient to support the engines like detachable units and just open up access panels to pull or drop the engines out quickly and swap in a new one. Like changing D cell batteries.
Could have been solved with a ground frame to support the wings weight when dropping the engines, though would have added a lot of extra ground support headaches.
@@watcherzero5256 Obviously, I haven't reviewed the plans for the Horton in anything but a casual glance, but having seen the Jumo engine I can't understand why a quick connect to the intake and exhaust with similar quick connections to fuel, electrics, miscellaneous couldn't be attained. I mean, an engine nacelle hung under a wing isn't much different. The mistake is to build it like a Formula 1 racer where the engine is part of the frame and structure. That's what makes service or engine replacement time consuming.
The Horton 229 is honestly my favorite jet in history and this Gotha p.60 is now on my list for the top ten. If it wasn't for you I never would have known about it ... thank you. Keep up the good work 👍
Its worth remembering the flying wing bomber America fielded post war and seen in the '53 War of the Worlds movie had major handling issues. It wasnt till the B2 decades later with computer control the concept really became workable.
That was Northrop's baby. There was nothing wrong with the final version, politics killed that plane. It was way better than the B-36. On a bittersweet note; in his last year's, Jack Northrop was kindly shown the ultra-secret B-2 stealth bomber, almost exactly the same size as his B-49, so he got to see his dream at work. Just upgraded a little bit.
@@peterkordziel7047Yep, and it hurts me whenever I see somebody say Germany invented/made the only flying wing during WW2 and how advanced they were. Just disrespects (Unintentionally) about Jack Northrop’s lifetime pursuit of flying wings.
@@peterkordziel7047 There was nothing wrong as an aircraft, but as an bomber. A horizontal bomber with unguided bombs need to fly straight level, wich isnt what a flying wing is good at. The norden bomb sight needed a few minutes for start up and selfcalibrate the gyros, without any turning or change of pitch and for the bomb run it also needed around 30 seconds of straight flying for "precise" bombing.
@@gratefulguy4130 I did a few of all-nighters playing SWOTL...actually won the air war for Germany one time by continuous bombing of allied bomber bases in England using the 229's. I loved that game--also played a LOT of Return to Castle Wolfenstein in the 90's.
I see the Ho.229 as the better design , it just needed more modular design sections, like the Me 262 was simple sections for mass production by semi trained folks. Wow -TY Rex you made me think, an be happy.
Another good upload Rex! My wife is from Rechlin so naturally I've been to the local aviation museum several times. The replica is sight to behold:)next to it is a Do 335 replica as well
God I remember not so long ago trying to look up the Ho 229 as it was and still is probably my favorite plane of all time, and finding nothing other than a short wiki article and couple random photos and excerpts with no details. That was late 2000s and early 2010s, before any kind of sizable documentary channels existed. We've gotten to the point of history documentation now I'm learning about whole sets of prototypes I would've never seen outside of a dedicated search both online and offline. If you can't tell I very much appreciate your videos covering obscure aircraft lol.
Back in the early 90s there was a PC video game called The Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe. I loved flying the German Wunderwaffe, SPECIALLY the Ho 229… it was so OP that it gave me a sense of invincibility, being so much more faster than anything escorting the bombers 😂
@@FritzKrautyes, they fly thanks to the computer controll corecting their inherited instabilities. Most of that stuff wasn't known at that time making those designs and their pilots literally crazy :)
Interesting. I didn't even know Gotha made aircraft during WW2 save for the Gotha Go 242, and that one's an unpowered glider. When I think Gotha aircraft, I think of biplane bombers that replaced the Zeppelins on the German bombing raids over England during the latter part of WW1.
They produced sub components for Messerschmitt and Heinkel before and during WW2. They came from railroad and tram rolling stock and expanded into aircraft before WW1. There was cooperation with Halberstadt. Gotha was forbidden aircraft design and production after WW1 and returned to their railroad roots. They came back into (military) aircraft in the 30s after the Nazis took over.
The allied had a number of incredibly promising and advanced aircraft projects too but, what is the use of messing up your logistics when you already have total air supremacy and fairly more than adequate planes to keep it? So, looking at the efforts the germans, tasked with the opposite challenge, thought to out of desperation is extremely interesting! Thank you Rex, another great vid!
The horten h.vii would be an interesting plane to learn more about. It is, uf im not wrong the sole flying wing aicraft of the horten brothers that made use of piston engines and was intended as a trainer and fighter aircraft.
Lower engine would suck in dirt/debris from the nose wheel. Lower engine fails, nose gets pushed down, ... I think you see why this layout could be a massive issue
Another problem with the P.60 is that if you lose one of the engines, you get a severe uncontrollable pitching moment due to the engine not only being placed in a vertical distance from the center of gravity, but also being slightly pointed away from the center of gravity, as in the opposite of what is done on the SU-57.
Would it really be uncontrollable? Like could you not trim the elevons to counteract it, like a standard layout multi-engine would trim the rudder to fly with one or more engines out?
@@rapter229 I doubt a pilot would be quick enough to go through the necessary steps fast enough, before the plane pitches uncontrollably. Even then, do the elevons have enough authority? They don't get extra leverage from a long tail boom, so you'd need extra speed, making landing a nightmare.
Wow the life size replica literally made me SHOUT OUT WOW irl so loud 😂 I can’t believe I barely am seeing this for the first time right now but thank u very much for sharing it. Keep up the great work :D
Very cool video! I highly recommend the book "Horten Ho 229 - Spirit of Thuringia" (written by Andrei Shepelev and Huib Ottens), there are also a lot of informations and drawings of the Gotha P.60 and more.
irst: there wa never an Horten 229! It is the Horten IX! The 229 comes from the Manufacturer Gotha where this Plane was build (and for the Build named Gotha 229 because Horten never was a Manufacturing Company capable of more than a few Prototypes ;) ). The Horten was not much more like a Proof-of-concept, The Plane that was planned to be build in Numbers was the slightly more conventional Gotha P60 with vertical Fins for better Stability.
The prone pilots position was a bad idea but the over and under engine placement meant in climb the upper engine had a blocked air path the bomb drop ejection would work if both engines were on top of the fuselage
Well, tricycle landing gear was still a fairly recent feature for some manufacturers and as today prototype aircraft are often tested initially with whatever parts can be found lying around.
The front landing gear came from the Heinkel He-177 Greif, because that landing gear was very good available because the He-177 was a big failed german bomber with ongoing double-engine overheating problems. Also it had the right size to give the Ho IX the perfect angle for take off and landing!😉👍
I feel slightly claustrophobic just looking at the prone positioned pilots. Aside from the reason stated for the failure of the ejection panel, I would also imagine that even if you were able to survive the initial hit to the aircraft and was able to 'punch out', you may well find yourself sucked into the bottom engine.
That thing would have terrible stall characteristics: at high aoa, the upper intake would be partially obscured which would cause a nose up moment from the lower engine, which would increase the aoa.
Prone piloting was a popular concept in that area, but it's consistently failed in trials. Putting both motors on top would have seemed more sensible. I'd rather cope with the yaw from one close to the centreline than the pitch changes from an over-under configuration. A problem with the Horton was the position of the gun muzzles close to the engine inlets. Carbon monoxide is as bad for turbines as it is for humans.
Too early for flying wing designs, those were only mastered with the advent of fly by wire computerized avionics by the end of the 60's. Though innovative, there's too much credit given to the Hortons et al, no wonderweapons but unreliable airframes for the technological lack mentioned.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 NO, flying wings were most certainly not "perfectly successful" pre war. German pilots were outspoken about the mediocre abilities and limited handling of flying wing gliders way before war. Large flying wings were not successful in the U.S. and after the crash of that large jet powered flying wing in the 50s, the whole Program was completely scrapped. It is a widely known technical fact, that flying wings only became safe and reliable airframes in conjunction with new computerized fly-by-wire technology
@@waltrohrbach2459 Ah, that must be why one of it is used for over 50 years in a flying school, the students didnt know how bad a flying wing is and just flew it. Its only a fact that early stealth bomber are aerodynamical so bad that they only fly with the help of computers. Serval of Hortens flying wings had good flying abilities, without any computers.
These more obscure aircraft are a treat, despite not being able to provide any epic stories of when they were used or how incompetent politics managed to get in the way of said use. But what I personally find kinda fun is that the interesting things you dig-out seem to be pretty abundant, since the more experience you gain, the weirder and more little-known information you manage to locate. Despite being declassified, I doubt any government is going to be happy just handing-out records of wth sort of potential warcrimes they were up to, so nice work!
The true genius of the Horten brothers has only been revealed in recent years through the work of Albion Bowers at NASA. Independently of Ludwig Prantl, the Horten brothers devised a wing where the outer part had a decreasing angle of incidence compared to the bulk of the wing. This produces a bell-shaped lift profile rather then conventional elliptical lift profile of most aircraft. The effect is that the problematic adverse yaw on roll of a flying wing is eliminated and the wing will fly stably in all non-stalled configurations. Most aircraft have adverse yaw on roll but the vertical tail surfaces have enough control authority to counter the yaw. Albion Bowers has made the point that the Wright Brothers invention of vertical rudders in the first flyer allowed controllable flight. Bowers conducted a long series of model experiments with what he called a "Prantl wing" about 10 years ago and showed that the predictions of Prantl and the Horten prototypes were substantiated. Northrup, as far as is known, never used Prantl's lift distribution on his flying wings and these were cursed with somewhat unpredictable handling and strange stall behaviour. The use of "fly by wire" in the B-2 bomber appears to be mandated by the behaviour of the Northrup wing but this isn't a given with flying wing designs.
Год назад+1
I think one area where you cant fault those late war german engineers and the RLM is optimism. Puting out new requirements for a fighter in Februar of 1945 is not what I would have done.
Because they had to convince the shouty man with the silly moustache that they _really believed_ that their _previous_ magic weapon would actually turn the tide of the war, is my guess.
Wonder if the lack of resources to build and operate conventional weapons in sufficient numbers actually made it easier for advanced/novel/weird designs to reach the prototype stage, their projected performance advantages appealing to the wishful thinking of decision-makers.
@@WilhelmKarsten That's putting a very noble face on it. Hopefully all modern militaries will also study the reasons that advanced technology did not save Germany.
I think the "wishful thinking" OP referenced was mostly one particular decision-maker, who frequently ordered ridiculously impractical weapons to be built. Most of the really wacky waste-of-resources designs trace their stories directly back to a demand from Mr. Funny Moustache.
@@johnladuke6475 Churchill didn't have a _stache_ but he did approve many ridiculous, completely ineffective weapons like the Sticky Bomb, Panjandrum and HMS Habbakuk.
Not really. The B1 and B-21 are designs failures from the 1940's with modern engines and avionics. LOL A massive over simplification, but accurate for all that.
Perfectly feasible. Flying wing aircraft have been taking to the skies (although not in vast numbers) since the 1910s. Here in Britain several manufacturers produced a wide variety of them in the twenties, thirties and forties.
Check the Armstrong Whitworth AW 52. Designed during WW2 as an experimental plane to test the feaibility of the flying wing jet concept it suffered control issues on its first flight, the pilot ejected, the plane recovered and flew itself to a relatively safe landing. The manufacturers therewith abandoned the project but a second prototype was flown for several years by the Royal Aircraft Establishment, presumably for further testing of the concept, until it was scrapped in 1954.
A brief examinaion of both aircraft reveals that the Ho-229 is devoid of any significant retroreflective structures. In particular vertical stabilizers.
I have always been a fan of the XF-12, 400 mph continuous cruising speed is very impressive for any piston engine, propeller driven aircraft. Unfortunately this sleek looking beauty was rendered completely obsolete by jets.
It had top secret German engineered FOD sensors on the wheel which could miraculously divert debris just outside the perimeter of the engine inlet. I’m completely shocked Rex did describe these in detail!
Yeah they were so unintelligent, unlike you! When this plane was designed Germany was in an absolutely desperate situation It was all about developing as quickly as possible and making it to be manufactured as simple, as fast and as cheap as possible. Form follows function!
I don't care how much of a technology advantage you have. You advanved aircraft can only be in one place at a time. If your adversary is fielding ten sircraft for your one you will lose in the end. The allies had already learned ways to counter the 262. The 262 was easy meat for allied fighters when landing. Plus most of these wonderwaffe accomplished their most important goal. Keeping their designers, potential condtruction technicians etc out of uniform on the Ost Front. Along with RKM officials.
Believe it or not but back in high school, I straight up copied & printed the entire Wikipedia page of the 229 as school project & sent it to my physics teacher; a completely random & unrelated topic to the main subject. Needless to say, I passed & was given a high grade (because we talked about it one time after class) I still have the copy hidden of you're asking
What's interesting to me is how many of the first gen jets from countries like the UK, France, and the USA had straight wings as opposed to the severely swept wings of these late WWII German designs. I know the allies came into possession of the German research on swept wings, but it did take them a lot longer to put it into practice compared to the Germans.
The initial jet engines the US, the UK and the USSR were producing really did not produce that much thrust. Swept wings really came into their own once speed ranges got into trans sonic ranges. And it's not like the German designers were the only ones that understood the benefits of swept wings. The UK, US and Soviets had aerodynamic research labs too. To a large degree we hear the "US, UK or Soviet designers just didn't understand the potential of the jet engine (1). Wrong. They understood it. They believed that the high temperature alloys needed for such engines simply had not been developed yet. Wittle gets the credit for his patent and building the first working turbojet. But it's not like he was the only one working on the idea. The only thing is nobody else could get one working or the money to build one prior to Whittle and then Ohlien. Others had tried building aviation turbines pre Whittle but they simply were too heavy. One exception I can think of is Lockheed which was working on its axial flow design starting in the late 30s iirc. 1) Some did. Some didn't. Plus in the 30s money was tight.
No nazi _operational_ jets had highly swept wings, the centre of gravity adjustment Me262 wings had the sweep of the DH Tiger Moth, the Fairey Swordfish and the DC3/C-47. The flying wings had strong wing sweep for lateral stability as featured in many microlights and rogallo wing hang gliders. None of the half baked pre nazi collapse designs had any prospect of flying fast enough to need wing sweep to delay compressibility.
Wouldn't it be cool to put that mock-up in a period setting, and take some black and white shots with an old Zeiss Icon or something,just for the fun of it? No fake "pics", mind you, real vintage 35mm film.
Such a great looking plane, just put both engines below and you have like a modern 4-th gen,2 engine config. Now, the Germans knew better, but seeing those 4x30mm canons I always wonder; wasn't 2x30mm enough, but with like 3x the ammo per canon (adding the shells the other 2 + their weight in more shells)?
I think the 30mm cannons were slow firing, to have a chance of hitting a target at high speed for the perhaps 1 1/2 to 2 seconds at most firing time it was felt multiple guns were needed. There were issues with the 2 cannons on the ME-163 as well, not enough firing time at the high closure rates that were encountered.
Serious research went into the development of the MK 108 autocannons and even Allied experts agree for the era they were in fact the most effective and efficient aircraft armament available during WW2. The disparity between the American use of the .50 cal machine gun was the result of one of the most shameful and humiliating failures of WW2 which was the reverse engineering and production of the Hispano Suiza HS.405 20mm cannon (M1/M2/M3) It was without any doubt one of the biggest blunders in WW2 history and rarely discussed or acknowledged by American historians.
@@WilhelmKarsten Hello Sandyby, I have to tell you that you in your various identities and your various sock puppets don't constitute 'Allied experts'.
I didn't know Gotha was still in business in WW2, I knew about their bombers in WW1 but to go from that to jet fighters is a leap for me. Im sure if I payed more attention to german plane designations I'd have noticed this.
untrue AEG, Siemens and Telefunken performed tests with radar absorbing designs and a special carbon paint was developed in Polte 2 Arnstadt for the so called "Flächenflugzeuge".@@wanderschlosser1857
@@WilhelmKarsten No it wasn't. Since radar stealth technology wasn't a thing back then. Flying wings weren't created because of radar signatures. They may have figured it as a helpful side effect but even that is rather a guess. There is no proof at all that Germany did research in radar avoidance by the shape of an airplane. What they did is developing radar reduction coatings for submarine snorkels but that's a completely different area.
@@wanderschlosser1857 LOL! You really don't have any knowledge of this topic do you? Anyone familiar with radar stealth aircraft technology can take one look at the Ho-229 and see that it is completely devoid of any significant retroreflective structures, something you won't see on other contemporary flying wing designs.
A nation known for its chemical industry yet they cannot produce a decent glue for constructing the Salamander or the Moskuito. And yes I know about the glue factory getting bombed out.
@@sardaukerlegion I'm refering to the Focke Wulf design by Kurt Tank that was built specifically to counter the Mossie. Hence the MosKito spelling. The TA-154
The nazi ‘moskuito’ didn’t even use the Mosquito’s multi-layer monocoque composite construction, they made a mediocre conventional built up structure out of wood and a unique sheet contact glue made by only one manufacturer, they had no plan B.
I don't think either plane, the Gotha or Horten would have been operational even if the testing had been done. The reason being, that when the flying wing planes made by the USA around the same time and just after the war, were tested at Muroc Army Air Field, later named Edwards AFB, there appeared to be an inherent instability problem with them associated with the technology of the period. It was not until later when computer tech was installed in the plane that this solved an as a result we have now B-2 bomber.
Well, more that the real issue was that flying wings without fly-by-wire technology are extremely challenging to handle, and the USA figured that the added pilot-training requirements was prohibitively expensive in both time and resources. With pilot training always a bottleneck at the best of times, requiring dozens, if not hundreds, of more flight hours in training was just not acceptable.
@@genericpersonx333so flying wings were not the optimal emergency fighter design for a nation that had lost most of its experienced pilots and did not have any time left to train more. Good. More bad NAZI decision making.
Yeah, sure, if the muricans cant, no one can. Thats why they needed a german to show them how to put a satelite in orbit and men on the moon. Flying wing can be build stable, the Hortens did it befor, during and after the war, if in the RC community flying wings are known for their good and stable flying abilities.
I've Studied The Horten 229 Since The Mid 80's ( Maby early 80's ) Still Have The Book on It, I Wish The German Milatary could have Hung on Just Long Enough For The Horten Brothers To Get To The Flying Stage. Not Deployment, Just Flying. P.S. I Also Wish Northrup Would Have Been Given A Fair Deal With The YB-49. And """ NOT """ Screwed With Dirty Washington DC Politics. Just Think What Could Have Been Possible if Technology Would have Possible If Not Suppressed, Buried, and Forgotten by the powers to be .!.!.!.! Because of Crooked Politicians, and Fragile Egos....
Totally agree! But time wasn't right and Flying Wings too difficult to fly... Now we all see the Renaissance of the Flying Wings! Look at B-2, B-21 and various UCAV's/Drones! These Flying Wings/Delta Wings Drones are Superior and the Future of Warfare!😎👍
If wars were won by drawings, Or victory by song, Or answers found in dreaming sound, Still Deutschland would be wrong! - with apologies to Rudyard Kipling
@@WilhelmKarsten Germany does all kinds of high tech manufacturing, but these industries rely on complicated networks of external suppliers and a very shaky energy sector. The energy crisis is their greatest threat because the country chose green over more reliable coal and nuclear.
@@Paladin1873 Germanys energy industry is highly diversified and no different in position to other industrial countries. Green energy Germany is running up against the hard limits of widespread commercial viability... other countries will find themselves in the same position very soon.
![The Defiant's Failed Successor | Boulton-Paul P.92 [Aircraft Overview #93]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ru2MVpyr9ks/mqdefault.jpg)
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
F.A.Q Section - Ask your questions here :)
Q: Do you take aircraft requests?
A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:)
Q: How do you decide what aircraft gets covered next?
A: Supporters over on Patreon now get to vote on upcoming topics such as overviews, special videos, and deep dives.
Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others?
A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both.
Cant await to see the H or Ho IX V2 or Ho229, Go229 Video, i live in Göttingen were the Kommando Horten was stationed they flew alot of Horten designs here , H VII V1 with Props, H XII Glider and the Ho or H IX V1 Glider, the H or Ho IX V1 Glider and H or Ho IX V2 (Ho229) Jet were both built here at Kommando Horten IX Göttingen , V2 was then send to Oranienburg via Rail from Göttingen Air Base for Testflights.
Theres a good Book about Horten designs from Hans-Peter Dabrowski "Deutsche Nurflügel bis 1945" (Die Motor und Turbinenflugzeuge der Gebrüder Horten) PODZUN-PALLAS with alot of good fotos
Kilo Newtons
Boeing 806?(not sure if that is correct..looks somewhat like an F-16...same contract competitor)
..and...Awesome videos...never miss one..
Could you make a video of the Bereznyak-Isayev BI rocket powered plane?
I remember hearing a very compelling theory regarding the proliferation of Nazi "Wunderwaffe" towards the end of the war. Basically (and I'm aware I'm generalising here), most of the engineers weren't actually that bothered about developing something that actually worked. They were more concerned with developing something that looked like it might work, with just a little more investigation. The main point of the exercise being that if they (and their staff) were engaged in the development of amazing technology that might just save the Reich, then they were less likely to be conscripted into an emergency Home Defence regiment, or sent to the Eastern Front.
The V2 missile program is an excellent example that completely dispells that benighted theory.
@@WilhelmKarstenDevelopment of the V2 started before the war even began.
@@WilhelmKarsten No it doesn't. It's simply an exception.
@@tz8785 Development began in September 1939
@@malcolmjcullen It's one of many German high tech weapons that actually reached production and operational service.
The Allies wasted vast sums of resources developing weapons that never saw service before the war ended, including dozens of aircraft that never achieved any success or impact on the war.
when i saw that thumbnail i wished i was wearing sunglasses so i could lower them. what a beautiful plane
First time seeing this plane? :D
It's my favourite, especially the "A" version with the pilot in the prone position.
Must be 15 years since i first saw it on "luft'46". (which is propably not a high-quality source)
Feels like the upper engine would have problem at higher angle of attack, while the lower would eat debis kicked by the nose wheel.
probably would, but over under mounted engines have been done before, so maybe this is an over thinking situation?
I can see it from a structural perspective, massively reinforce one narrower area rather than spreading out the reinforcement which may have weighed more. Effectively it provides a keel that everything else hangs off which can be more efficient when done correctly. Do I see it as a good idea? Hell no! That opinion, however, comes from living with an aero engineer for over 40 years.
A flameout of the lower Engine on, or shortly after takeoff would send you right in to the earth.
Where as an failing upper engine would turn you nose up, then the lower one would flame out and after that you would neatly die in a flaming impact..... perfect.
Maybe i am to pessimistic but i wonder why they gave the engines such a big angle of attac.
Usually a low mounted engine should face up to counter pich up bias. Likewise a high mounted engine should face down to counter pitch down.
And this plane is the complete opposite.
@@Flofutzhmm... maybe this is one of the planes that lead to realizing that.
@@nos9784 it was never realized. so that had to be learned from something else
I much prefer the Horton. The engines buried in the wing/fuselage made for a much cleaner, nicer look. With more time to develop I'm sure that they could have created a frame that was sufficient to support the engines like detachable units and just open up access panels to pull or drop the engines out quickly and swap in a new one. Like changing D cell batteries.
You massively understate the difficulty of swapping out engines. I’d prefer pod-mounted underslung ones as in the Convair Hustler
@@charlestoast4051 ok. The Hustler isn't the same in any way, but we like what we like I guess
It's all fun and games until you have to do an engine replacement.
Could have been solved with a ground frame to support the wings weight when dropping the engines, though would have added a lot of extra ground support headaches.
@@watcherzero5256 Obviously, I haven't reviewed the plans for the Horton in anything but a casual glance, but having seen the Jumo engine I can't understand why a quick connect to the intake and exhaust with similar quick connections to fuel, electrics, miscellaneous couldn't be attained. I mean, an engine nacelle hung under a wing isn't much different.
The mistake is to build it like a Formula 1 racer where the engine is part of the frame and structure. That's what makes service or engine replacement time consuming.
The Horton 229 is honestly my favorite jet in history and this Gotha p.60 is now on my list for the top ten. If it wasn't for you I never would have known about it ... thank you.
Keep up the good work 👍
Mind you it is the Horten
Not to be confused with Norton Security
@@tomppeli.
Or Ralph Kramden’s favorite neighbor…..
Hey Norton!
Top ten ! It was only a drawing ! 🤣
If "luft 46" is still online, it is a very interesting website full of these planes :)
NAZI fetishist detected
Its worth remembering the flying wing bomber America fielded post war and seen in the '53 War of the Worlds movie had major handling issues. It wasnt till the B2 decades later with computer control the concept really became workable.
That was Northrop's baby. There was nothing wrong with the final version, politics killed that plane. It was way better than the B-36. On a bittersweet note; in his last year's, Jack Northrop was kindly shown the ultra-secret B-2 stealth bomber, almost exactly the same size as his B-49, so he got to see his dream at work. Just upgraded a little bit.
@@peterkordziel7047Yep, and it hurts me whenever I see somebody say Germany invented/made the only flying wing during WW2 and how advanced they were. Just disrespects (Unintentionally) about Jack Northrop’s lifetime pursuit of flying wings.
@@peterkordziel7047 There was nothing wrong as an aircraft, but as an bomber. A horizontal bomber with unguided bombs need to fly straight level, wich isnt what a flying wing is good at. The norden bomb sight needed a few minutes for start up and selfcalibrate the gyros, without any turning or change of pitch and for the bomb run it also needed around 30 seconds of straight flying for "precise" bombing.
@@wolf310ii This is an argument I've never heard. I'll have to run this by some folks ... You might be right.
*Heavy breathing* you uhhh… got any more super Nazi planes?
How much more national-socialist could a Super Nazi plane possibly be?
Calling that High-Tech Aircraft Projects simply as "Super Nazi Aircraft" is absolute Dumb!!!😜
The Even More Secret Weapons of The Luftwaffe. (90's video game title.)
That game was peak WWII flight sim. I got lost on bombing runs so many times.
@@gratefulguy4130 I did a few of all-nighters playing SWOTL...actually won the air war for Germany one time by continuous bombing of allied bomber bases in England using the 229's. I loved that game--also played a LOT of Return to Castle Wolfenstein in the 90's.
Thanks for the video!!! It's incredible that an aircraft from 1944/45 looks more modern than some of today's aircraft.
I see the Ho.229 as the better design , it just needed more modular design sections, like the Me 262 was simple sections for mass production by semi trained folks. Wow -TY Rex you made me think, an be happy.
Another good upload Rex!
My wife is from Rechlin so naturally I've been to the local aviation museum several times.
The replica is sight to behold:)next to it is a Do 335 replica as well
If i had known these existed, I would have visited rechlin years ago!
Not that far, even by my european standards :)
I live near the Steven Udvar Hazy center which has the only surviving Do335 along side the V3 prototype of the 229. They’re really impressive up close
That lower engine would be a fod-monster feeding on the stuff thrown up by the front wheel.
God I remember not so long ago trying to look up the Ho 229 as it was and still is probably my favorite plane of all time, and finding nothing other than a short wiki article and couple random photos and excerpts with no details. That was late 2000s and early 2010s, before any kind of sizable documentary channels existed. We've gotten to the point of history documentation now I'm learning about whole sets of prototypes I would've never seen outside of a dedicated search both online and offline. If you can't tell I very much appreciate your videos covering obscure aircraft lol.
The Horton is held by the Smithsonian, iirc
Back in the early 90s there was a PC video game called The Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe. I loved flying the German Wunderwaffe, SPECIALLY the Ho 229… it was so OP that it gave me a sense of invincibility, being so much more faster than anything escorting the bombers 😂
The Horten is undergoing restoration in the Udvar-Hazy museum, close to Dulles Airport.
@@Mugdorna thanks for posting info about the status of the Horton 229
(:
Love these crazy concept type aircraft
not crazy concepts. Today they fly in the US bomber command.
@@FritzKrautyes, they fly thanks to the computer controll corecting their inherited instabilities. Most of that stuff wasn't known at that time making those designs and their pilots literally crazy :)
@@randomnickifyGermany invented the fly-by-wire technology that makes that possible
@@WilhelmKarstenHello Sandyboy, it's always fun to see your wehraboo fantasies emerge.
@@WilhelmKarstenAnd the internet.
Interesting. I didn't even know Gotha made aircraft during WW2 save for the Gotha Go 242, and that one's an unpowered glider. When I think Gotha aircraft, I think of biplane bombers that replaced the Zeppelins on the German bombing raids over England during the latter part of WW1.
my exact thoughts!
Me too!
They produced sub components for Messerschmitt and Heinkel before and during WW2.
They came from railroad and tram rolling stock and expanded into aircraft before WW1. There was cooperation with Halberstadt. Gotha was forbidden aircraft design and production after WW1 and returned to their railroad roots. They came back into (military) aircraft in the 30s after the Nazis took over.
@@ottovonbismarck2443 thank you for that information 😊
@@ottovonbismarck2443 ..and a bit before...like all of 'em!
The allied had a number of incredibly promising and advanced aircraft projects too but, what is the use of messing up your logistics when you already have total air supremacy and fairly more than adequate planes to keep it? So, looking at the efforts the germans, tasked with the opposite challenge, thought to out of desperation is extremely interesting! Thank you Rex, another great vid!
Yep, Jack Northrup had been working on "flying wing" designs just before, during and after WWII.
The horten h.vii would be an interesting plane to learn more about.
It is, uf im not wrong the sole flying wing aicraft of the horten brothers that made use of piston engines and was intended as a trainer and fighter aircraft.
I can always count on you to find some of the most fascinating and obscure designs. Thank you Rex, this was an awesome episode.
Very comprehensive cover of these two (?) aircraft. Keep on with this series of episodes, please.
Always interested in learning about various concepts and prototypes of aircraft, especially the early jet plane variants.
The external engine pods was a brilliant solution to the problem of engine changing
Oh I really like the idea of over under engines.
Add a bypass and your AOE wouldn't matter.
Lower engine would suck in dirt/debris from the nose wheel. Lower engine fails, nose gets pushed down, ... I think you see why this layout could be a massive issue
Yes, covering 'Lufwaffe 46' projects, long time fan of the subject.
Not only did the Horton aircraft make it to the prototype stage, it still exists!
There's also a full size model of the P.60 C Nightfighter in Germany!😎
Another problem with the P.60 is that if you lose one of the engines, you get a severe uncontrollable pitching moment due to the engine not only being placed in a vertical distance from the center of gravity, but also being slightly pointed away from the center of gravity, as in the opposite of what is done on the SU-57.
Would it really be uncontrollable? Like could you not trim the elevons to counteract it, like a standard layout multi-engine would trim the rudder to fly with one or more engines out?
@@rapter229It would happen pretty quickly…dunno.
@@rapter229 I doubt a pilot would be quick enough to go through the necessary steps fast enough, before the plane pitches uncontrollably.
Even then, do the elevons have enough authority? They don't get extra leverage from a long tail boom, so you'd need extra speed, making landing a nightmare.
Yet another fascinating presentation, another big thank you !!
Wow the life size replica literally made me SHOUT OUT WOW irl so loud 😂 I can’t believe I barely am seeing this for the first time right now but thank u very much for sharing it. Keep up the great work :D
Rechlin is great, I highly recommend that museum!
Thanks for explaining this unknown to me at least concept flying wing fighter😊
Now unless i miss my guess, that museum prototype looks to be carrying Schrägemusik... what a fascinating design.
Very interesting. I never knew about this plane. Amazing research.
Never knew about this awesome stuff! Love the horton so this one too of course !
There is an example of a P-60C type aircraft tfat reach service. The F7U Cutless, perhaps Vought biggest design failure.
Great video, Rex...👍
Also: *I ❤️ FLYING WINGS*
Cool thanks Rex
Excellent content 👌
The problem I see with the P.6o would be FOD. lower engine behind the nose gear looks like a great way to ingest lots of stuff.
This is the best thing I ever saw.
Very cool video! I highly recommend the book "Horten Ho 229 - Spirit of Thuringia" (written by Andrei Shepelev and Huib Ottens), there are also a lot of informations and drawings of the Gotha P.60 and more.
irst: there wa never an Horten 229! It is the Horten IX! The 229 comes from the Manufacturer Gotha where this Plane was build (and for the Build named Gotha 229 because Horten never was a Manufacturing Company capable of more than a few Prototypes ;) ). The Horten was not much more like a Proof-of-concept, The Plane that was planned to be build in Numbers was the slightly more conventional Gotha P60 with vertical Fins for better Stability.
0:56 Sounds like the thought behind the superbattleship Yamato and Musashi by Japan.
Fun fact: Your opening credit sound of an engine being started sounds a lot like how my internet is running today. lol
Thanks Rex. Flight of the Phoenix. Model glider designer. All took the pi.s.
Both you and Mike Machat doing concept aircraft now? Phew!
The prone pilots position was a bad idea but the over and under engine placement meant in climb the upper engine had a blocked air path the bomb drop ejection would work if both engines were on top of the fuselage
Thanks again my friend.....
Shoe🇺🇸
21secs old! Nice
Lucky that it would be easy to change the engines as that lower mounted motor looks like it would suck in half the runway.
What's with the unproportionally large front tire on the 229?
Well, tricycle landing gear was still a fairly recent feature for some manufacturers and as today prototype aircraft are often tested initially with whatever parts can be found lying around.
The front landing gear came from the Heinkel He-177 Greif, because that landing gear was very good available because the He-177 was a big failed german bomber with ongoing double-engine overheating problems. Also it had the right size to give the Ho IX the perfect angle for take off and landing!😉👍
I feel slightly claustrophobic just looking at the prone positioned pilots. Aside from the reason stated for the failure of the ejection panel, I would also imagine that even if you were able to survive the initial hit to the aircraft and was able to 'punch out', you may well find yourself sucked into the bottom engine.
A Ho-229 that might have worked. Great presentation, as alays.
That thing would have terrible stall characteristics: at high aoa, the upper intake would be partially obscured which would cause a nose up moment from the lower engine, which would increase the aoa.
Weve come full circle. Sincerely, Gotha.
I visited the Rechlin museum last year. The P.60 is fascinating, everything about it is wierd, including the upwards firing anti bomber armament!
I wasn't aware either a Rechlin museum or P60 existed, or is there a Hannebau there too.
Prone piloting was a popular concept in that area, but it's consistently failed in trials. Putting both motors on top would have seemed more sensible. I'd rather cope with the yaw from one close to the centreline than the pitch changes from an over-under configuration.
A problem with the Horton was the position of the gun muzzles close to the engine inlets. Carbon monoxide is as bad for turbines as it is for humans.
CO is combustible
It certainly is. Just as an F-104A.
@@juslitor That's true, but it still chokes turbines.
So how would you personally cope with the yaw from a failed side by side layout engine with no vertical stabiliser and rudder?
Incredible...
I genuinely thought that the answer to "escape from the aircraft was simple" would be some variation of "you didn't" or "creative use of a sidearm"
I just noticed that the name is a pun
Gotha P.60? How so?
@@AtheistOrphan When you search it up it is called Gotha GO P.60
The wing plan looks like the F117. Hmmm ....
0:41
The gentleman on the left looks like (the fictional) US Army Private Gomer Pile.
Too early for flying wing designs, those were only mastered with the advent of fly by wire computerized avionics by the end of the 60's. Though innovative, there's too much credit given to the Hortons et al, no wonderweapons but unreliable airframes for the technological lack mentioned.
Flying wings were perfectly successful pre war.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 NO, flying wings were most certainly not "perfectly successful" pre war. German pilots were outspoken about the mediocre abilities and limited handling of flying wing gliders way before war. Large flying wings were not successful in the U.S. and after the crash of that large jet powered flying wing in the 50s, the whole Program was completely scrapped. It is a widely known technical fact, that flying wings only became safe and reliable airframes in conjunction with new computerized fly-by-wire technology
@@waltrohrbach2459 Ah, that must be why one of it is used for over 50 years in a flying school, the students didnt know how bad a flying wing is and just flew it.
Its only a fact that early stealth bomber are aerodynamical so bad that they only fly with the help of computers.
Serval of Hortens flying wings had good flying abilities, without any computers.
These more obscure aircraft are a treat, despite not being able to provide any epic stories of when they were used or how incompetent politics managed to get in the way of said use. But what I personally find kinda fun is that the interesting things you dig-out seem to be pretty abundant, since the more experience you gain, the weirder and more little-known information you manage to locate. Despite being declassified, I doubt any government is going to be happy just handing-out records of wth sort of potential warcrimes they were up to, so nice work!
Was the ‘prone’ Meteor at Cosford built to explore concepts in this aircraft?
That looks a lot like Kenneth A. Arnold's UFO drawings from 1947.
3:40 - Why are the gun barrels bent that way, as opposed to angling the entire gun?
The true genius of the Horten brothers has only been revealed in recent years through the work of Albion Bowers at NASA. Independently of Ludwig Prantl, the Horten brothers devised a wing where the outer part had a decreasing angle of incidence compared to the bulk of the wing. This produces a bell-shaped lift profile rather then conventional elliptical lift profile of most aircraft. The effect is that the problematic adverse yaw on roll of a flying wing is eliminated and the wing will fly stably in all non-stalled configurations. Most aircraft have adverse yaw on roll but the vertical tail surfaces have enough control authority to counter the yaw. Albion Bowers has made the point that the Wright Brothers invention of vertical rudders in the first flyer allowed controllable flight. Bowers conducted a long series of model experiments with what he called a "Prantl wing" about 10 years ago and showed that the predictions of Prantl and the Horten prototypes were substantiated. Northrup, as far as is known, never used Prantl's lift distribution on his flying wings and these were cursed with somewhat unpredictable handling and strange stall behaviour. The use of "fly by wire" in the B-2 bomber appears to be mandated by the behaviour of the Northrup wing but this isn't a given with flying wing designs.
I think one area where you cant fault those late war german engineers and the RLM is optimism. Puting out new requirements for a fighter in Februar of 1945 is not what I would have done.
Because they had to convince the shouty man with the silly moustache that they _really believed_ that their _previous_ magic weapon would actually turn the tide of the war, is my guess.
never have i been here so early
One might guess that there was some design consideration for a plane that could reach Argentina without need to refuel ;)
Wonder if the lack of resources to build and operate conventional weapons in sufficient numbers actually made it easier for advanced/novel/weird designs to reach the prototype stage, their projected performance advantages appealing to the wishful thinking of decision-makers.
Germany was the pioneer of the concept of "Force Multiplication" through advanced technology, a concept adopted by all modern military forces today.
@@WilhelmKarsten That's putting a very noble face on it. Hopefully all modern militaries will also study the reasons that advanced technology did not save Germany.
@@danpatterson8009 German technology advancements are directly linked to Britain's defeat in WW2 and the collapse of its overseas colonial empire.
I think the "wishful thinking" OP referenced was mostly one particular decision-maker, who frequently ordered ridiculously impractical weapons to be built. Most of the really wacky waste-of-resources designs trace their stories directly back to a demand from Mr. Funny Moustache.
@@johnladuke6475 Churchill didn't have a _stache_ but he did approve many ridiculous, completely ineffective weapons like the Sticky Bomb, Panjandrum and HMS Habbakuk.
ALL flying airplanes are a compromise between perfection and what will really work.
is any flying wing design feasible without modern computing and avionics?
No, The First flying-wings were flowed by the British in something like 1910ish
Not really.
The B1 and B-21 are designs failures from the 1940's with modern engines and avionics. LOL
A massive over simplification, but accurate for all that.
Perfectly feasible. Flying wing aircraft have been taking to the skies (although not in vast numbers) since the 1910s. Here in Britain several manufacturers produced a wide variety of them in the twenties, thirties and forties.
Check the Armstrong Whitworth AW 52. Designed during WW2 as an experimental plane to test the feaibility of the flying wing jet concept it suffered control issues on its first flight, the pilot ejected, the plane recovered and flew itself to a relatively safe landing. The manufacturers therewith abandoned the project but a second prototype was flown for several years by the Royal Aircraft Establishment, presumably for further testing of the concept, until it was scrapped in 1954.
@@thomasrotweiler - Indeed, the AW52 was an amazing aircraft.
I wonder wether the Ho 229 or Gotha P60 would have made the same radar-signature.
A brief examinaion of both aircraft reveals that the Ho-229 is devoid of any significant retroreflective structures. In particular vertical stabilizers.
In any case, easier to maintain with the 004s on the outside
3:36 Does this mean steering with air brakes? Braking harder on the left or right side of the airframe? Or how did these devices work?
Check out the XF-12 Rainbow
I have always been a fan of the XF-12, 400 mph continuous cruising speed is very impressive for any piston engine, propeller driven aircraft.
Unfortunately this sleek looking beauty was rendered completely obsolete by jets.
2:25 The nose wheel is right in front of the lower engine intake. What could go wrong?
Everything?
It had top secret German engineered FOD sensors on the wheel which could miraculously divert debris just outside the perimeter of the engine inlet. I’m completely shocked Rex did describe these in detail!
@@ronjon7942
Just like the US Navy copied the collapsible nose gear from the ME-262 to increase aircraft storage space onboard carriers. 😖
The thousand year reich master race couldn’t imagine a routed intake duct🤣
Yeah they were so unintelligent, unlike you!
When this plane was designed Germany was in an absolutely desperate situation It was all about developing as quickly as possible and making it to be manufactured as simple, as fast and as cheap as possible. Form follows function!
I don't care how much of a technology advantage you have. You advanved aircraft can only be in one place at a time. If your adversary is fielding ten sircraft for your one you will lose in the end. The allies had already learned ways to counter the 262. The 262 was easy meat for allied fighters when landing.
Plus most of these wonderwaffe accomplished their most important goal. Keeping their designers, potential condtruction technicians etc out of uniform on the Ost Front. Along with RKM officials.
Germany 1945: We're out of oil and steel, but we have meth amd pencils.
Germany still had Aluminum, hydrogen peroxide and alcohol... no one else in the world could make supersonic guided missiles that reached space.
So many great ideas, so few pilots to fly them on too little fuel.
Jet fuel was not a problem, it was the fuel for the ICE engined traditional fighters that was too little
Believe it or not but back in high school, I straight up copied & printed the entire Wikipedia page of the 229 as school project & sent it to my physics teacher; a completely random & unrelated topic to the main subject. Needless to say, I passed & was given a high grade (because we talked about it one time after class)
I still have the copy hidden of you're asking
What's interesting to me is how many of the first gen jets from countries like the UK, France, and the USA had straight wings as opposed to the severely swept wings of these late WWII German designs. I know the allies came into possession of the German research on swept wings, but it did take them a lot longer to put it into practice compared to the Germans.
The initial jet engines the US, the UK and the USSR were producing really did not produce that much thrust. Swept wings really came into their own once speed ranges got into trans sonic ranges. And it's not like the German designers were the only ones that understood the benefits of swept wings. The UK, US and Soviets had aerodynamic research labs too. To a large degree we hear the "US, UK or Soviet designers just didn't understand the potential of the jet engine (1). Wrong. They understood it. They believed that the high temperature alloys needed for such engines simply had not been developed yet. Wittle gets the credit for his patent and building the first working turbojet. But it's not like he was the only one working on the idea. The only thing is nobody else could get one working or the money to build one prior to Whittle and then Ohlien. Others had tried building aviation turbines pre Whittle but they simply were too heavy. One exception I can think of is Lockheed which was working on its axial flow design starting in the late 30s iirc.
1) Some did. Some didn't. Plus in the 30s money was tight.
No nazi _operational_ jets had highly swept wings, the centre of gravity adjustment Me262 wings had the sweep of the DH Tiger Moth, the Fairey Swordfish and the DC3/C-47. The flying wings had strong wing sweep for lateral stability as featured in many microlights and rogallo wing hang gliders. None of the half baked pre nazi collapse designs had any prospect of flying fast enough to need wing sweep to delay compressibility.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Wrong. The Me 163 had compressibility problems, and the Me 262 also experienced problems in dives.
One can almost see the beginings of the Gloster Javelin in these designs (7:49 onwards) 🤨
Wouldn't it be cool to put that mock-up in a period setting, and take some black and white shots with an old Zeiss Icon or something,just for the fun of it? No fake "pics", mind you, real vintage 35mm film.
Such a great looking plane, just put both engines below and you have like a modern 4-th gen,2 engine config. Now, the Germans knew better, but seeing those 4x30mm canons I always wonder; wasn't 2x30mm enough, but with like 3x the ammo per canon (adding the shells the other 2 + their weight in more shells)?
4x30:
I think it's about limited time on target... gotta make those seconds count.
I think the 30mm cannons were slow firing, to have a chance of hitting a target at high speed for the perhaps 1 1/2 to 2 seconds at most firing time it was felt multiple guns were needed. There were issues with the 2 cannons on the ME-163 as well, not enough firing time at the high closure rates that were encountered.
Serious research went into the development of the MK 108 autocannons and even Allied experts agree for the era they were in fact the most effective and efficient aircraft armament available during WW2.
The disparity between the American use of the .50 cal machine gun was the result of one of the most shameful and humiliating failures of WW2 which was the reverse engineering and production of the Hispano Suiza HS.405 20mm cannon (M1/M2/M3)
It was without any doubt one of the biggest blunders in WW2 history and rarely discussed or acknowledged by American historians.
@@WilhelmKarsten Hello Sandyby, I have to tell you that you in your various identities and your various sock puppets don't constitute 'Allied experts'.
I didn't know Gotha was still in business in WW2, I knew about their bombers in WW1 but to go from that to jet fighters is a leap for me.
Im sure if I payed more attention to german plane designations I'd have noticed this.
The "Gothaer Waggonbaufabrik" was manufacturing mainly Bf110 (under license), some training planes and gliders back then.
it was, but the P60 was less stealthy to radar
Neither P.60 nor Ho229 were built with deep thoughts on radar signature in mind.
untrue AEG, Siemens and Telefunken performed tests with radar absorbing designs and a special carbon paint was developed in Polte 2 Arnstadt for the so called "Flächenflugzeuge".@@wanderschlosser1857
@@wanderschlosser1857That's a false narrative, Germany was years ahead in radar stealth technology..
@@WilhelmKarsten No it wasn't. Since radar stealth technology wasn't a thing back then. Flying wings weren't created because of radar signatures. They may have figured it as a helpful side effect but even that is rather a guess. There is no proof at all that Germany did research in radar avoidance by the shape of an airplane. What they did is developing radar reduction coatings for submarine snorkels but that's a completely different area.
@@wanderschlosser1857 LOL! You really don't have any knowledge of this topic do you?
Anyone familiar with radar stealth aircraft technology can take one look at the Ho-229 and see that it is completely devoid of any significant retroreflective structures, something you won't see on other contemporary flying wing designs.
A model of a vehicle that was never built isn't a replica, it's a mock-up.
When it comes about WW2 Jets, my prefered one still is the He 162 Salamander.
A nation known for its chemical industry yet they cannot produce a decent glue for constructing the Salamander or the Moskuito. And yes I know about the glue factory getting bombed out.
@@mpetersen6 The Mosqito was British
@@sardaukerlegion
I'm refering to the Focke Wulf design by Kurt Tank that was built specifically to counter the Mossie. Hence the MosKito spelling. The TA-154
@@mpetersen6 Ipressive, have never seen it anywhere before.
The nazi ‘moskuito’ didn’t even use the Mosquito’s multi-layer monocoque composite construction, they made a mediocre conventional built up structure out of wood and a unique sheet contact glue made by only one manufacturer, they had no plan B.
I don't think either plane, the Gotha or Horten would have been operational even if the testing had been done. The reason being, that when the flying wing planes made by the USA around the same time and just after the war, were tested at Muroc Army Air Field, later named Edwards AFB, there appeared to be an inherent instability problem with them associated with the technology of the period. It was not until later when computer tech was installed in the plane that this solved an as a result we have now B-2 bomber.
Inherent
Well, more that the real issue was that flying wings without fly-by-wire technology are extremely challenging to handle, and the USA figured that the added pilot-training requirements was prohibitively expensive in both time and resources. With pilot training always a bottleneck at the best of times, requiring dozens, if not hundreds, of more flight hours in training was just not acceptable.
@@genericpersonx333so flying wings were not the optimal emergency fighter design for a nation that had lost most of its experienced pilots and did not have any time left to train more. Good. More bad NAZI decision making.
@@nightjarflying Thank you. I getting old.
Yeah, sure, if the muricans cant, no one can.
Thats why they needed a german to show them how to put a satelite in orbit and men on the moon.
Flying wing can be build stable, the Hortens did it befor, during and after the war, if in the RC community flying wings are known for their good and stable flying abilities.
...i see a distinct lack of wings that would enable bell shaped lift distribution.
That alone is going to make it inferior.
Quite sure it would have serious ingestion problems.
I've Studied The Horten 229 Since The Mid 80's ( Maby early 80's ) Still Have The Book on It, I Wish The German Milatary could have Hung on Just Long Enough For The Horten Brothers To Get To The Flying Stage. Not Deployment, Just Flying.
P.S. I Also Wish Northrup Would Have Been Given A Fair Deal With The YB-49. And """ NOT """ Screwed With Dirty Washington DC Politics. Just Think What Could Have Been Possible if Technology Would have Possible If Not Suppressed, Buried, and Forgotten by the powers to be .!.!.!.!
Because of Crooked Politicians, and Fragile Egos....
Bizarre use of capital letters at the beginning of every word makes an otherwise interesting comment difficult/impossible to read. Weird.
@@AtheistOrphanReads like an average conspiracy theorist tbf
Words of wisdom my friend, yet the wing concept was just TOO much for the cronies ;/
Totally agree! But time wasn't right and Flying Wings too difficult to fly... Now we all see the Renaissance of the Flying Wings! Look at B-2, B-21 and various UCAV's/Drones! These Flying Wings/Delta Wings Drones are Superior and the Future of Warfare!😎👍
The Ho 229 actually got to the flying stage: the 2nd prototype did made 3 flights.
👍
If wars were won by drawings,
Or victory by song,
Or answers found in dreaming sound,
Still Deutschland would be wrong!
- with apologies to Rudyard Kipling
And yet the British empire collapsed and Germany is now the economic superpower of Europe.
@@WilhelmKarsten That star is fading as well.
@@Paladin1873 Germany is the largest manufacturer of jet aircraft in Europe...
@@WilhelmKarsten Germany does all kinds of high tech manufacturing, but these industries rely on complicated networks of external suppliers and a very shaky energy sector. The energy crisis is their greatest threat because the country chose green over more reliable coal and nuclear.
@@Paladin1873 Germanys energy industry is highly diversified and no different in position to other industrial countries.
Green energy Germany is running up against the hard limits of widespread commercial viability... other countries will find themselves in the same position very soon.
60 yrs later we have the B 2
Absolutely not related! Northrop was as deep into flying wings in the 30s and 40s as Horten. That's where the B2 legacy comes from.
👍👍👍
Talk about out of the frying pan and into the fire when you need to bail out.
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻