Talk:Horten Ho 229

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Wrong table?[edit]

The table on the right says that the maximum speed was 977 km/h while the text on the right says that the plane met the 3x1000 rule. Is it me or is there something wrong? Halibutt 08:19, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Dealt with it.--DooMDrat 11:40, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

How this could be, that the ferry range is less than twice the combat range? --Grzes 00:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, it says that it was mistakenly referred to as the Gotha Go 229, won't someone move it to the Horten Ho 229 page and make this one a redirect? Cal 1234 15:46, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Done.--DooMDrat 07:17, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)


Northrop had access to the Horten, then much later on developed the B-2. But so what? Is there any real evidence that studying the Horten had any impact on the development of such a radically different aircraft so many years later? I've left it in for now as I suppose it's possible, but I do find it unlikely. Coyote-37 11:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not exactly so radical to believe that. I mean, they had the Ho-229 and the B-2 had the same basic single-wing shape, and part of the B-2's stealth comes from carbon-based materials and whatnot. - RPharazon 01:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I remember watching a Discovery Channel documentary about stealth technology. People involved with Skunkworks visited the National Air & Space Museum to study the Horten Ho 229. - Nthguy

I've looked into this a bit more and realised that Northrop has a history of developing flying wing aircraft since the Horten was captured. So in a sense the Horten was the beginning of a development chain that eventually led to the B-2, after many aircraft in between. Interesting stuff, I wouldn't ever have made the connection. Coyote-37 14:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Jack Northrop had a history of developing flying wings at the same time the Germans were developing this one. It's either Secret Aircraft of the Allies or Secret Weapons of the Allies on the History Channel that deals with Northrop developing flying wings in both bomber and fighter variants before and during the war, but these were largely ignored as practical for various reasons.

Those Discovery and History shows are full of um... very rampant imagination. Jack Northrop was certainly inspired by Horten brothers' pre-WW2 work with flying wings but he has been working in parallel throughout WW2. The YB-35 and YB-49 bombers were certainly created long before anyone had access to the Ho 229. At the time of YB-49 testing in the 1940s it was noted to have a low radar signature, and B-2 was development of that concept and not the Ho 229. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Northrop's work on the flying wing design began in 1923, not very long after the Horten's, actually. Though they did begin before he did. Intrestingly, it is more likely that both worked without the others ideas as a basis but were more based on a 1918 publication by von Prandlt in which an emphasis on a thick wing was made concerning aerodynamics.

I don't have the reference in front of me, but...It's my understanding that the Hortens focused on all-wing gliders in the beginning, and at a glider competition in Germany they set a new altitude and time aloft record. This proved it was possible to have a controllable "all-wing" craft. This glider was pictured in the New York Times at some point, and a month later the US Army asked Northrop to develop a powered prototype based on that photograph, obviously for its stealth potential. Go229 03:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC) (Although I'm sure it's possible Northrop was chosen because he had pre-existing work on all-wing aircraft) Go229 04:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless the Horten brothers also invented a time machine or a crystal ball, the "stealth" talk is unsubstantiated because radar was purely theoretical at the time. Let's drop it once and for all please. - Emt147 Burninate! 02:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The design of the HO 229 seems to have taken place in 1943-44, at a time when both the allied and the germans had access to radar technology. According to the web page referenced, the construction was to fill the space beetween two wooden sheets with sawdust, charcoal and glue, a crude version of a composite. The charcoals only function seems to be as a radar absorber, which is a plausible invention at that time. But I would not call the charcoal component "carbon fiber", as it is another thing, and would also add strength to the structure. As described in the linked text, the fiber material in the composite is the sawdust.
Jack Northrop was chosen because of his experience with flying wings. No conspiracies, no stealth technology. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I was quite suprised myself when I found out how early crude Radars were invented, and quickly improved upon because of the war. This article ( claims a British scientist dramatically improved an existing Radar in February of 1935, making it finally useful against aircraft (it was previously used to locate ships and icebergs at night and in the fog) Also, The majority of the Ho-229's skin was carbon-impregnated plywood. It could be argued the plywood was to save on aluminum, but the carbons only possible use was to absorb radio waves (discovered by Hertz in 1888) which carbon does quite well. Go229 04:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hang on - there is no claim that we Brits invented radar for detecting aircraft - its a well known fact. Thats mainly how the Battle of Britain was won.Engineman 15:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've heard comments that YB-49 was difficult to track on radar but nothing from a credible source and therefore nothing that belongs on Wikipedia. The same goes for carbon-impregnated skin on Go 229 unles you can cite a good reference. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

…from the book, "Nurflügel", by Peter F. Selinger and Dr. Reimar Horten…” The skin was very thick: 17 mm, all plywood; three times the necessary strength. On the production aircraft, this would be replaced by two 1.5 mm plywood sheets, with a 12 mm layer of sawdust, charcoal and glue mix, sandwiched in between. The charcoal would diffuse radar beams, and make the aircraft ‘invisible’ on radar”…

The German interest in radar invisibility was triggered by the de Havilland Mosquito - an English high speed, long range fighter/reconnaissance plane built from laminated wood which was, due to its material, only barely detectible by the German air defence radar system (Reichsluftverteidigung West, see e.g A. Galland 'Die Ersten und die Letzten'). The Mosquito was a continuous annoyance and could not be brought down due to lack of early warning time before the Me 262 in its night fighter version was available, The radar absorbing composite materials had been developed (and employed) for the U-boat's snorkel air intakes (Codename 'Schornsteinfeger), so that material was available too. Radar scientisis probably noticed the low radar profile of a Nurflugel aircraft as well as the advantages connected with the lack of right angles (tailfin, engine pods etc.), see the interesting discussion in 'In the valleys of shadows' by D. Baker, Air International, Sept. 1995.

Considering the importance of radar, and the desperate situation of the German air defence (not to mention the barely existing reconnaissance and attack capabilities) it seems plausible that considerable effort went into the development of stealth capabilities although I would believe that the Horten aircraft was chosen because its geometry had stealth potential, rather than specifically developed with this aim in mind. 23.01.07, Gerald.

I watched an apparently well resourced documentary on BBC which showed that the Germans had a plan to drop a nuke on Washington at the end of the war as a last ditch effort.

A competition produced 3 designs that could reach the US - which were amazingly:

a manned sub orbital vehicle a bit like the space shuttle, with chemical booster rocket assisted take off a 3 stage unmanned version of the V2 - essentially the Titan man on the moon approach ICBM. A flying wing stealth type bomber - the Horten.

Should be some mention of this here? Engineman 14:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources are sketchy to say the least, but according to "The Horten Brothers" by David Myhra, the 'Amerika Bamober' that was chosen (supposedly) to carry Germany's atomic bomb to the US was going to be a Horten all-wing aircraft (oddly) designated the Ho 18-A. That book contains artistic renderings of proposed Ho 18 designs and a drawing of the bomb itself. There would seem to be some debate about the nature or even the existence of this device (a quick google search won't deliver any hard facts), but the Hortens appear to have been quite certain of the order for the aircraft (though claimed no knowledge of the intended payload) and the French troops who blow up the facility housing two Uranium filled devices are equally convinced of the existence of the German atomic bomb(s). However, the French troops also did not wait for the ALSOS team to investigate before blowing the building, so we will never know. Ultimately, such a thing-- Ho 18 and German atomic bombs-- are a different subject altogether, and should have their own arcticle. I'm sure that discussion page will be filled with even more speculation then normal. Nwilde (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Describing the Ho 229 as "the first aircraft designed to incorporate stealth technology" doesn't necessarily imply that the stealth technology developed in the US in the 1970s and 1980s is directly descended from the Ho 229. Apparently Horton was experimenting with making the Ho 229's radar signature less visible, but it's also equally apparent that later stealth technology was developed independently. It is possible that the early interest in stealth technology by the Germans was ignored or abandoned by the allies after the war, partly because of improvements to radar technology. Peter Guilliam (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC) The part before and after Kohlestaub + Leim = Unsichtbar coal dust + glue = invesible, is for interest. With citation of Reimar Horten about stealth. --HDP (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Again: Is there a shed of evidence that indicates the Horten brothers were working on a stealth design by purpose? I have seen quite a number of assumptions, including words like "apparently", "plausible" or "probably". The facts that 1) it resembles a B-2 (though flying wings were not new nor unknown) and 2) it had charcoal in the wings (rather than coated with carbon fibres, of which there is none at the Smithsonian Ho 229) doesn't do the trick for me. Both Horten brothers lived to ripe age, indeed to see the age of proved stealth planes; are there any interviews prior to the 1980s where they give the young engineers some old hints? Or indications that they told other engineers to paint their planes with charcoal? Unless proven, the "Nazi Stealth Plane" ought to be put in the myth-bin. Hexmaster (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, 'stealth' was an issue in German design during WW2. Submarines had snorkels coated withe radar-absorbing material (involving coaldust), so the material of the Horten plane itself indicates that a reduction in radar signature was intended. One should also remember that German home defense night fighters as well as British long-range night fighters carried radar as well as radar search and warning devices onboard, and that fighter/fighter interceptions occurred with increasing frequency. An aircraft with reduced radar visibility would have been an advantage. The Horten Borthers did mention the stealth capability of their aircraft in their book (see discussion above).... I think Hexmaster should look a bit deeper into the use of radar during WW2... (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Gerald 23. Jan. 2010
As I ask below (having somehow managed to miss this :/), are we arguing the same point? "Stealth" as we understand it & "radar CM" or "low-observable" as it was understood in WW2 are not the same thing. While it may well be the Germans were trying to design-in CM to existing radar, & they certainly weren't ignorant of CM, describing it as "stealth" may be misleading to the uninitiated today. Hence, I would suggest we'd be better saying something like "'radar CM' (now known as 'stealth'", rather than baldly describing it as stealth. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with "radar countermeasures". Sounds far better than "stealth". Hexmaster (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the Germans had both ferrite and iron whiskers on their submarines at about that time. (I don't know why the iron whiskers worked. They tend to connect to each other electrically.)David R. Ingham (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of charcoal by itself is not evidence of intended stealth or reduction in radar RCS, unless you can find documentation proving that was the goal. See, the funny thing is charcoal is a common component of wood putty glue, and when you combine that with sawdust(!!!) you get a nice filler material - and thats apparently how this "RAM composite" was actually used on the airframe. Now the Germans did know how to reduce short wave radar signature on their schorkles, but those materials are quite different from anything used in the Hortens flying wings.

Unfortunately it seems wiki has been over run by those who would believe Reimar Horten at his word, despite his track record of claiming brilliant design intuition where there was only luck. Or, in this case, some happy coincidences (similarity to B2 and charcoal) that make it easy to fool the poorly informed. Hes almost like a Nazi Burnelli.

The "stealthy" characteristics of the 229 have been disproven time and time again by plenty of good sources, yet the history channel and pulp aviation mags continue to run with it. Lets hope this site sticks with the better sources... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes i wonder what kind of people comment on wikipedia (thank god it isn't used as reliable source for anything relevant). The Horten 229 was to be an invisible to radar bomber (stealth itself is a kind of countermeasure, for today standards an electronic one). The "charcoal dust glue coating" was a try to achieve invisibility. The great question is: how funny that a 1944 "seriously behind schedule" XB-35 program became the 1947 YB-49 "promising jet powered flying wing - base of the stealth bomber project", in other words, in 3 years Northrop abandoned the piston propelled flying wing and made a "promising jet powered aircraft to base a stealth bomber project" from scratch? This look like the US rocket program, from near zero jumped to apollo V after War (all from scratch right?). Not forgetting that none of Northrop flying wing worked with any kind of "coating" or even with "radar countermeasure" - but funny the Horten did (even if it doesn't worked, but well, who knows?).... Also, anyone wanting documents will never have them, because if they were available there is something called "patents" and operation "paperclip" was nothing more that "patents theft" operation (oh, i am sorry, americans call it "borrowing" right?). Just to add some "reliable info", when talking about planes like Horten 229, you are not talking about a simple prototype, you are talking about years long resource consuming research about achieving a bomber able to avoid radar detection, if it worked or not, you will never know since it never came to an end (sims aren't real life, no matter how good they are)- but this unfinished research was for MANY a beginning.˜˜˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes i wonder what kind of people comment on wikipedia That was the funniest thing I've read in ages. Thanks. Greglocock (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
There some problems with the theories posted above:
Flying Wings:
The idea was not invented by either Horten or Northrop (not by a long shot) - there were swept wing tailless aircraft flown before WW1 (in the US, UK and France based on the aircraft of Dunne - which established that it could be done), and tailless flying wings in the 30's in Roumania (the Mihail Stabiloplan) and France. Northrop might have got his start after Horton but that does not mean his work was at all derivitive - for starters their control systems were different, as Northrop split his ailerons into trailling edge airbrakes, while Horton used a longitudinal bar (called a drag rudder), which rotated across the full chord, to generate differential drag.
The reason the XB-35 and the equally unpromising YB-49 failed was due to a lack of understanding by Northrop of what he was doing. Simply put, on a typical aircraft, the weight and lift cannot be aligned or the aircraft will be difficult to control without computers (back to that later), so they are offset, with the weight forward of the lift, while the resulting pitching moment is cancelled by the tailplane. On the flying wing, the same force provided by the tailplane must still be there, and it is - either by the trailling edge of the wing (a reflexed trailling edge), or provided by the wingtips on a swept wing. The problem is that neither of these has a similar moment arm (being closer to the axis of rotation it is attempting to stop) and thus must provide a proportionally larger force, which imparts a increased amount of induced drag. Thus while the flying wing saves weight over a conventional aircraft, it will always have more induced drag, which in turn will counteract any reduction in parasite drag. On a small aircraft this is not a problem as weight is more a problem than drag, and so all the small test examples worked really well. When it was scaled up to a bomber size however, the increase in drag became a major impediment to performance. To try and reduce the drag penalty, the XB-35 and YB-49 attempted to reduce the need for the balancing force, by bringing the weight and lift coefficients closer together, with the predictable result that the aircraft was unstable, and utterly useless as a bomber in any of its derivitives. Move ahead to the 80's and computers had made deliberately unstable aircraft possible (such as the F-16 and Airbus) whose control is dependant on computers, for maneuverability in the former, and drag reduction in the latter. Applying that to the flying wing bomber made the B-2 possible without either the huge drag penalty, or an unflyable aircraft. Horton had nothing to do with this as his line of development was effectively ended with the destruction of the 3rd reich - even if the wreckage was occasionally pondered over and he continued to work afterwards. The B-2 uses the Northrop control system, not the much less stealthy Horton one.
While radar obsorbent materials use graphite it isn't in the form of some goop slapped between two sheets of wood by a slave labourer - it is composed of very carefully selected pellets of various shapes and sizes, embedded in a matrix whose function is to ensure a perfect distribution and alignment of those particles which is still only effective against a limited number of radar frequencies from a limited range of viewing angles. While this isn't a problem for a snorkel, it is a major problem for an aircraft and the modern RAM took decades of research to reach even the limited degree of success achieved thus far.
The radar waves that strike the material is weakened through many small reflections, and are largly prevented from returning to the transmitter. The stuff the Germans were using would not have had this effect. In addition, not all stealthy aircraft have been made of this, or even of wood. The all metal T-33 was used for a lot of experiments involving radar precisely because it had a very small radar signature. To accomplish this, the exterior surface had few right angles and lots of curved surfaces, the engines or more particularly the engine's faces were hidden, and the effect worked only from a small range of angles. Deleting the rudder and other flat surfaces should have made the Ho 229 a smaller radar target, however the basic structure was steel tubes, which would have acted as very effective radar reflectors (the wood in front of it doing little or nothing to prevent this), making it a huge target, and to make matters worse, the engine faces were exposed, making a nearly ideal radar reflector from the front. Had it been covered in metal, the rcs would have been smaller, not larger - the wood was used instead because it was available, not because it had ANY desireable features regardless of what claims Horton invented afterwards. The Mosquito on the other hand did not have an underlying steel tube structure to act as a radar reflector, and had just the two engines which did not have a rotating beacon reflecting back the radar waves. The wood structure neither reflects nor absorbs much of the radar signal (though this is not zero), and thus acts like glass does to light, exposing the underlying structure to the radar waves, whether it is more wood, as on the Mosquito, or steel as on the Horton. In any case, the Horton was a long way from being the first aircraft to incorporate anything resembling low observable technology - during ww1 (discounting the invention of camouflage), the Germans covered three aircaft in Cellon (similar to clear plastic, and used by the early film industry) in the interests in making them difficult to spot. The experiment failed because the material was very reflective from some angles, explosively flammable and difficult to maintain.NiD.29 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole business with conductive paint is a snare for the unwary. All metal airplanes are conductive (bonded to make sure) and curvy. Covering a non-metal airframe with conductive paint makes it more typical, not exotic in any way. Whether the Horton brothers or the Northrup-Grumman model shop applied the paint. Ironically, the low frequency of Chain Home was forced by an inability to make enough power for early warning at higher frequencies. By choosing to think of airplanes as conductive dipoles, rather than conductive spheres, Chain Home made a virtue of necessity. This can be substantiated in "The Invention That Changed The World", "A Race On The Edge Of Time", "Radar, A Wartime Miracle", "Duel Of Eagles", etc. Not to mention memoirs by Watson-Watt, R. V. Jones, etc. I'll start collecting the references.
The National Geographic Channel / Myth Marketeers video is conceived to trap eyeballs that can be rented to advertisers. They are not your friends. Truth is not their motivation. (do I have to provide references for this?) Its a rare hour on the History Channel or similar products that doesn't contain at least one fairly obvious mistake. Putting a 1945 Go 229 up against 1939/40 Chain Home is fairly typical. The TV episode may have its own page and comments should be referred there. ---- Billabbott (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hortens and Northrop[edit]

Can someone actual site a source for Jack Northrop being influenced by the Hortens or vice-versa? They both began playing with all-wings in the 1930s so it seems reasonable that one may have inspired the other, but beyond inspiration-- is there any tangible connection? I ask this because other then both developing all-wing aircraft at the same time, there doesn't appear to much simularity in the designs. Northrop's are slightly swept, flat in chord span-wise, straight lined at the leading and trailing edges, their internals are sparsely distributed across the span, and they are truly all-wing with few protrusions. Hortens' are steeply swept, have distinctive dihedral, twisted chord span-wise, often dramatically curved trailing and sometimes leading edges, are densely packed in the central body, and often have a central body though these are well blended in their later aircraft (like the Ho229). Aerodynamically, they're quite different: Northrop's wings are just that-- wings, as if the fuselage had been deleted and the remaining wings were bonded together; the Ho229 (and Horten's earlier gliders) has a distinctive center section of blended wing-body joined to high aspect ratio out sections. When I look at a three view drawing of the Ho229 and, well, any Northrop all-wing plane I don't see any simularity other then a lack of a tail. I guess what I'm saying is this: even discussing Northrop, beyond saying that the Hortons' ideas were not unique, is distracting from the subject, is probably not accurate, and could quite possibly an insult to either or both parties. So, let's keep Northrop's mention in the arcicle to a minimum, it already borders on irrelavence and the discussion above certainly does. (Though I find it entertaining nonetheless!)

As for the B-2/YB-49/stealth discussion above, I think it must kept in mind that the technological gap between the developement of the YB-49 and the B-2 is such that the B-2 was probably "influenced" by the configuration and little more. Other then their wing span, what simularities are there? A glance at their plan view makes the B-2 look more like Ho229 then a YB-49 (blended body, higher AR outer wings, engine placement). Just thought I might add some fuel to the fire.  ;) Nwilde (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Fate on V1-V6[edit]

I moved the comments put on the article page here. - Alureiter 22:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The versions provided by the article are incorrect. The V1 was a glider (no engines) and was captured by the the US Army. It was considered to have no research value and was destroyed by the military. The V2 crashed during testing and killed the test pilot Lt. Erwin Ziller. The V3 is the only known version to survive the war and is currently stored at NASM's Paul E. Garber Restoration, Preservation & Storage Facility in Silver Hill, Maryland. The fate regarding V4-V6 is unknown.
Also the Horten v3 was intact after the war, pictures of the partially completed center bodies were being produced at the Gotha aircraft factor. Versions v4 to v-7 were in various stages of completion in the factory.
- 21:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

There was also a mockup built at Ilmenau. I've been told that some photos where taken, but these photos seem to be missing als well as the fate of the mockup is unknown. 08:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The mockup was also designated V 6 - the blueprints say V6 Atrappe = V 6 mockup. This was the mockup for the planned production version. V 3 to V 5 where in progress at Friedrichroda, but V 4 and V 5 progressed not much more than the tubular framework. None of them was a night figter design or two-seater. The Ho IXb designs have also been designated V6 or V 7 by the Hortens but the development was independent from the work under the direction of gotha. So thetre actually were 2 V 6 - the one developed by Gotha - a single seater and one developed by the Hortens - a two seater Version. Please read the book from Ottens and Shepelev or have a look at the documents archived at the Military Archive in Freiburg Germany and the Smithsonian Institute ! 14:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC) (Erzwo @ german Wikipedia)

NPOV and unverified[edit]

This article has a lot of sweeping generalizations, suggestions of conspiracy, and gushing superlatives. Many violate NPOV and not a single one is supported with references. Either a considerable copyedit or thorough referencing is needed.

Not to mention claims of stealth. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The majority of that was added by a single user [1].--Drat (Talk) 11:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I have removed a lot of speculation. It needs a thorough rewrite and documentation. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Bizarro aerodynamics[edit]

I have removed this section from the article:

The Ho 229's design was far ahead of its time. The wing had a twist so that in level flight the wingtips (and thus, the ailerons) were parallel with the ground. The centre section was twisted upwards and provided the majority of its lift. Because of this twist in its shape, if the pilot pulled up too suddenly, the nose would stall (lose lift) before the wingtips. This meant that the craft's nose would dip in the beginnings of a stall causing the plane to accelerate downwards, and thus it would naturally avoid a flat spin. Horten also noticed in wind-tunnel testing that in the beginnings of a stall, most airfoil cross-sections began losing lift on their front and rear edges first. Horten designed an airfoil cross-section that developed most of its lift along the centerline of the wing. Since the centre line had high lift and the front and rear edges had low lift, it was called a "Bell-Shaped lift curve". The wings were also swept back at a very modern and optimum angle which enhanced its stall-resistance, and also lowered drag, helping its top speed. This made the Ho-229 easy to fly and very stall-resistant in all phases of its operation.

This is NPOV, speculation, and some really bizarre aerodynamics. I honestly don't understand what did what in the design. Pitch up/down in stall is a function of which part of the wings loses lift first and where the centre of lift shifts in relation to the center of gravity. It has nothing to do with which part provides the most lift and certainly not with flat spins. Most airfoil sections create lift at 1/3 of the chord, not leading and trailing edges. And so on... If anyone has credible references and wants to rewrite this properly, please do so. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The "twist" in the wing wasn't uncommon, though a physical twist tended to be regarded as crude by WWII standards. It's known as "wash-out," the idea being that the wingtips had a flatter angle of attack relative to the inner wing sections. Thus, at critical angles of attack, the center sections of the wing would stall first while the wingtips remained "flying," preserving aileron authority when entering a stall. This is acheived in one of two ways: an actual physical twist along the wing cord, or an aerodynamic twist in which the outer airfoil sections are of slightly different shape. The latter is considered more elegant and practical. The writer is wrong about swept wings increasing stall-resistance; they'd significantly raise the stall speed of the wing, making the a/c more likely to stall in low speed/high angle of attack configurations (landing, steep turns, sudden high-speed pull-outs, etc.)

Therein was my complaint. The paragraph suggests the wings had washout and then proceeds with a bunch of nonsense about aerodynamics. - Emt147 Burninate! 17:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Source?[edit]

It seems that this article, or at least part of it, was copied from don't know if that helps Vesiv 18:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Vesiv along with about a dozen other websites is a Wikipedia mirror. - Emt147 Burninate! 18:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Plane's name/article title[edit]

The first sentence of the lead says that "Ho 229" is incorrect, but this is the title of the article. Which is correct? Miremare 18:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is basically correct, the Horten H9 is frequently mislabeled the Ho-229. What that sentence fails to establish is relavence to this arcticle, namely that the Ho-229 was a combat aircraft based on the aerodynamics of the H9 test aircraft. You're absolutely right, the first sentence leaves the reader scratching their head.Nwilde (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Feeling stealthy[edit]

Seeing the "stealth" concept wouldn't be conceived for decades yet, shouldn't the line be rewritten, "incorporate radar countermeasures"? (Not the best phrasing, I know.) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Stealth - Chain Home[edit]

Sorry Napikinwaffe fan bois, a 16m wingspan aircraft of whatever shape and material construction other than vapor would be easily detectable by a 12 m radar system such as Chain Home. RCS doesn't really come into it. Long wavelength radar systems are currently marketed as anti-stealth. Greglocock (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought the idea was to confound Allied airborne Short Wave radars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing of maintenance templates[edit]

I'd like to ask BilCat and Deniss to NOT remove maintenance templates without solving the problem addressed, as they did, either without any explanation or with simple denials that the problem with clarity exist. If the sources refer to early 1940s technology, then the anachronism should be mentioned, if sources refer to the mid-1940s technology (which would be much more logical, as Ho 229 was tested in powered flight as late as in December 1944), fix it. But do not remove maintenance template without addressing the problem. Thank you! -- (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You're reading far too much into the information. I doubt the source goes into that much detail, not should they, and it's not of any use in an encyclopedic article. - BilCat (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
A reliable source could had explained the apparent discrepancy between early-1940s radar and mid-1940s aircaft, as given in current text. If 'early 1940s' radar and 'Chain Home' are used in sources, then it should be mentioned that by mid-1940s United Kingdom already had Chain Home Low and Chain Home Extra Low too. I just don't see the point in closing one's eyes against the obvious problem with mid-1940s aircraft tested against some generic 'early 1940s Chain Home' radar frequencies.-- (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment's like "I just don't see the point in closing one's eyes ..." really aren't helpful. It's not "anachronistic", just vague, and in the long run, it's irrelevant here. If this sort of information really interests you, then borrow/buy the book and read it. If it answers your questions, then come back and add the info. But I suspect the book doesn't go into such details. - BilCat (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It obviosuly IS anachronistic, as by 1940 not only Chain Home was operating, but also Chain Home Low, and Chain Home Extra Low was available by 1944. What sense makes a testing of 1945 aircraft only against Chain Home 1939 technology?
I don't have to borrow/buy that 'book'. There's referenced in the article that "the Nothrop copy was tested against early 1940s Chain Home frequencies", so all I have to do is to add a reliable source referencing that Chain Home Low and Chain Home Extra Low were operating by 1945 too, when Ho 299 was still in prototype only. Which won't be difficult. I did not want to be offensive and deal with the problem with the help of maintenance templates, but now I see that some people's rudeness can't be helped. Thank you. -- (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
p.s.:Could you explain me when you see a vagueness? I believe that a spade is called a spade, a hoe is called a hoe, so I fail to see what other the Chain Home could mean. When I was inclined to see a vagueness there, maintenance template was removed without explanation. Do you believe this was helpful? --16:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed, some information are still classified and are not due for release in another 30 years time. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 18:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
As Dave said, the exact frequency ranges that Northrop used are probably classified. Someone with tthe source can clarify that thw wording in the text is actually in the book, but beyond that, I doubt you'll get a more specific answer. If you interpret "early 1940s" to mean 1939 technology, I doubt you'll ever get a clear answer to your questions. - BilCat (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that the WWII radar frequencies are still classified. Do you have a reliable source proving this, or it's just your guess? Still - we have reference that the frequencies were "early 1940s Chain Home" only, which was not seriously disproved as yet.
I don't interpret "early 1940s" as 1939 technology - the problem is that I see two issues here - a)"Chain Home" - which is, for the sake of simplicity, a 1939 technology, (AFAIK production of CHL sets was ordered in late 1939, so it started operating in 1940) and b)"early 1940s" which could certainly include Chain Home Low too, if someone is amateurish enough not to distinguish between CH and CHL. I don't see more space for vagueness, as Chain Home Extra Low could not be correctly described as "early 1940s radar" by anyone who can be taken seriously.
I don't need a perfectly clear answer - just mentioning that "early 1940s Chain Home" is not completely relevant for 1945 situation would be enough.-- 16:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you need footnotes instead of some of these so-called "clarification required" templates as it seems unlikely they'll be resolved until, say, 2042. Seems utterly pointless having a plethora of maintenance templates wrecking the page when a footnote could be used to explain the uncertainty of some terms. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
In what sense? I am not surely the one who needs footnotes for the frequencies used, but footnote on CHL and CHEL/ and/or for explanation that details of tests are not clear - would be handy. -- (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have discovered the root of the confusion: The section is question was added [ here by User:Ken keisel, an editor who, in my opinion, often does not get it right. The best course here is to check the source directly, and verify the wording used here. The apparent porblems in the text may well be due to errors introduced by Ken. 195, yes, you do not have to be the one to verify the info in the original source, but as you are interested in this to a high degree of detail, I thought it might be something you'd enjoy doing. I will try to find someone else with access to the book to verify that the information in the section is actually contained in the book. - BilCat (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to track down the original source, which appears to be an article in a periodical called Aviation History. This appears to be an archive of the article. To be honest, there's not much there. The phrase "duplicating the same three frequencies used by the Chain Home radar network in the early 1940s" is all it gives about Chain Home and the timeframe. I guess we'll just have to assume Northrop used relevant frequencies, but I doubt we'll ever know. - BilCat (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

BilCat, thank you for your explanation as well as for finding text of the article. It seems that {Clarify} template is inappropriate here. Would the template {{Specify}} do better? I also want to do apologise to you, as I was also not behaving politely during our discussion sometimes. -- (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Apology accepted. But back to the tags: I really don't know if anyone is ever going to find the answers to your questions. I think having this discussion here will be sufficient that someone who knows where to find the answers will find them, and post them here. - BilCat (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Bat Wing Design Preceded WWII By 50 Years[edit]

There was a bat-winged design by one of the very first attempts to get off the ground in a heavier than air machine. Its called the Ader Eole, which first flew for a very short span under its own power. Later the designer thought that two propellors driven by a steam engine would succeed.

I would say that a bat winged design with two propellers is a good harbinger of things to come, because the design elements are already there.

The wright brothers later succeeded in advancing the science of aerodynamics and aircraft construction so that an aircraft could fly after the turn of the century with a biplane and a canard empenage.

But you would have to take a second look at one of the very first flying prototypes and observe that it was a bat-winged design.

Note also the speed of the awkward invention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ho or H 229?[edit]

What is the actual designation or should there be an alternative designation given? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

Probably either Ho IX or Go 229.Nigel Ish (talk)
Their own internal model number was H IX or H.IX . The official designation by RLM was Ho 229. As per the late-war policy of the RLM - to honor the designer instead of the factory producing the aircraft - it would never have been assigned a Gotha manufacturer code. --Denniss (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
True, however "Go 229" was for years used in the general sources on the aircraft, I believe (a lá the Bf/Me 109 thing?). - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 23:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's a known fact they used a wrong designation for decades. Happens if you copy from each other's work without using or having access to primary sources. Maybe another "fact" generated by Mr Price ? --Denniss (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, definitive answer. If using the Horten model number in roman numerals then the prefix is "H.". If using the RLM designator then it is either "8-229", "Ho 229" or "Go 229" all four are equally correct, but the RLM designator Ho should not be used with the roman numerals thus "H.IX" NOT "Ho IX". The H.IX was the only Horten wartime design to be assigned an RLM designator, so all other Hortens should be "H.I" etc. etc.Petebutt (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I notice you've reverted my edit, does this need discussion?Petebutt (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
For confirmation read "Nürflugel", (in German) which is a semi autobiographical narrative history of The Horten Brothers and their aircraft. Myhras translated copy does not follow the correct format for desigantions.Petebutt (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds definitive and changes have now been incorporated in the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

The Ho229 V1 was in no real way a combat plane as it didn't even have engines. Gotha took over development and engineered the V2 with engines and then redesigned the V2, along with adding guns, to arrive at the reasonably definitive V3. If we look at the Me/Bv155 program as an example, then I would say that it would be entirely possible that production 229s would have been designated Go229. As to the designers name in the designation (as in Ta or Me), in each case the designer in question was currently involved in the program at the time of designation (again the Bv155). JetMec (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

B&V completely revamped/redesigned the Me 155, in the end it was basically a new aircraft. Thus it received a new company designation. Not so in the case of the Ho 229. It was still the Horten design with some improvements from Gotha. --Denniss (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


I removed the section about the documentary for several reasons. First, it's not really notable (how many documentaries have been made about the P-51 Mustang, I wonder?), and secondly, it included the following statement:

"at its end showed CGI reconstructions of Ho 229's attacking and destroying British wartime coastal radar masts and quickly disposing of Spitfires that tried to interfere, and later attacking a large fleet of Allied heavy bombers."

...yeah, the CGI sounds pretty cool. But...

  1. . It was hard for Stukas, diving vertically, to knock out the radar stations. Would a fast-moving jet in a shallow dive at best (which makes it even faster...) really be more effective?
  2. . Spitfires? Erm. This would probably be logical - if they would have been up against Spitfires. As opposed to, oh, say, Typhoons or Meteors...not to mention whatever the USAAF brought to the party.
  3. . "Attacking a large fleet of Allied heavy bombers" - and no doubt having a turkey shoot, I assume? Were these bombers in the CGI docufiction escorted? And by what? Probably not, say, P-83s, which would have been likely had the war continued to that point. (And what kind of bombers? B-17s or B-29s? Makes a big difference there, too.);dr version: it smells of typical German War-Winning Wonder-Weapon/napkinwaffe stuff. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 21:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The importance of the television documentary is that it utilized the Northrop Grumman scale model and that it presented a credible recreation of the Horton flying wing series. That is already mentioned and probably suffices. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

American & British Intelligence Documents[edit]

Got dumped today. Have fun.

(Link blocked?)

Hcobb (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of replica[edit]

These are pretty cool photographs. Is this suitable to be included in external links? -- Bobyllib (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


As has been discussed above in the 'Stealth' section and elsewhere, the claims of the Ho 229 being 'stealth' are dubious at best, and I'd seirously question a National Geographic "documentary" as a reliable source - NGC, History, and post-1990s Discovery "documentaries" tend torwards the "Nazi uberweapons rah rah rah" angle, alas. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's the experts from Northrop Grumman that are the reliable source for this; if they say the shape is somewhat stealthy and that the skin has radar absorbent properties, and that the shape is designed for reduced RCS, then I guess we have to take their word for it; they're the world-experts.Teapeat (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I mean nobody is saying it's a fully stealthy aircraft, but by applying attention to details you can reduce the radar cross-section significantly. The SR-71 was a semi-stealth aircraft, and only about ten years later, and America wasn't even at war. It's not magic, electromagnetism has been known since the late 19th century; the principles of radio would have been well known at that time, as well as some knowledge of what kinds of materials absorb radio.Teapeat (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
But full-stealth, that knowledge is about 40 years away.Teapeat (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Calling it "stealth", no matter what N-G engineers say, presupposes what we know today was known, & intended, by Horton engineers in 1943. Prove that, & cite it well, or leave it out. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It would still be a low RCS "stealth" aircraft even if it was 100% accidental, but it has carbon loaded glue; that makes little sense except for stealth, and there's a quote from a Horten somewhere that he did that deliberately. The basic shape was probably accidental though, a lot of slippery aerodynamic aircraft aren't particularly visible on radar.Teapeat (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
But either way, it's not our call, it's the experts, and they've called it.Teapeat (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
The question is, how reliable is Myrha? And rememeber that a lot of things even "experts" say - especially about Nazi wonder-weapons - have to be taken with grains of salt; the tale of H-45 is a caution. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I doubt anyone is going to read this, but here goes.

With regards to "but it has carbon loaded glue; that makes little sense except for stealth" - simply put nothing could be farther from the truth.

When the 229 was under construction there was a dire lack of resin wood glues to work with, since pretty much all the factories producing resin were no longer in operation. So what were the Hortons to do? Adding charcoal to wood glue is a very old, simple and cheap method of improving the strength of wood glue. I believe this is the primary, if not sole reason for the presence of carbon in the wood glue.

And to add to that simply adding charcoal to glue is not going to magically give you reduced RCS properties. The RAM materials used on stealth aircraft do have carbon in them, but it is far more complex then simply tossing some in to the mix. The size of the carbon "pellets" are carefully selected and applied to the skin in a way that ensures an equal, grid like distribution. This is far beyond just adding charcoal to the glue.

As far as Myrhas claims that the aircraft was designed for stealth, keep in mind that this is based on interviews he conducted with the Horton brothers after the B-2 became known publicly. In the years after WW2 the Horton brothers published several books, and not a single one of them made any mention of stealth in the design of the 229 or any other aircraft designed by them. Until the B-2 came out of the black that is - then they released a new edition of an earlier book with mentions of stealth and the addition of coal to the glue as an attempt at making RAM. Furthermore interviews with other engineers at Horten after turn up zero mentions of stealth. And one interview with an engineer in the 90s, when asked about the stealthy aspects of the 229, stated rather emphatically that there was no attempt at stealth with the 229. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:117:C080:520:5E26:AFF:FEFE:8C40 (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Myrha seems to be an aviation historian/enthusiast like quite a few other authors out there. (He has published a bunch of books.) Anyway, the original paper, not written by Myrha, is available here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)