German WWII "stealth" plane recreated

[tflash]

See article in National Geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090625-hitlers-stealth-fighter-plane.html

 

There is a TV show on their channel 28 june.

[Groove]

Very interesting, thanks for sharing!

 

What makes me angry are the conditions they are storing such a unique piece of aviation history! They should seal it off air to prevent the rotting :mad:

[Namenlos Ein]

So now we can compare Northrop Grumman mock-up with the original aircraft.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_229

[Pilotasso]

It wasnt intended to be stealth, it was intended to be efficient, by using the flying wing concept. It was fast and maneuverable but unforgiving for pilots. Incidently it had lower RCS but the technology to develop stealth was just not there yet, not that it would matter much for aircraft that did MK1 eyeball fights only anyway.

[nscode]

Reiman Horton said he mixed charcoal dust in with the wood glue to absorb electromagnetic waves (radar), which could have shielded the aircraft from detection by British early warning ground-based radar known as Chain Home

So, you say they incidently stoumbled on some trash in the workshop and dumped charcoal (that they used while they played cowboys and indians) into the glue :)

 

And by that time, radar was very much used. Ground based and airborn.

[Teknetinium]

It wasnt intended to be stealth, it was intended to be efficient, by using the flying wing concept. It was fast and maneuverable but unforgiving for pilots. Incidently it had lower RCS but the technology to develop stealth was just not there yet, not that it would matter much for aircraft that did MK1 eyeball fights only anyway.

 

 

Germans were first using radar reflecting paints, dont know at witch airframes, Russians/Americans did found out about this after the war end began there own experiments.

 

I know Russians were painting their MiG-23s,when they came back from missions there was not radar reflecting color left. I think that's why F-22 dont fly faster then it dose.

[Pilotasso]

RAM paint is pretty standard on every aircraft including mach 2+ types.

 

F-22's dont fly faster than 1.8 as a software limit due to the temperature of the termoplastics on the skin. The air intakes may also have to do with it, though the plane has been tested at significantly higher speeds. How high is classified.

If they change skin material the plane might have a speed limit upgrade.

[Namenlos Ein]

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/hitler-s-stealth-fighter-3942/Overview12#tab-Overview

 

I still can't understand why, or for what, they restore that aircraft.

 

[nscode]

Why not? All kinds of aircraft get restored.

[Pilotasso]

Of course all planes deserve to be restored for historic reasons. Even ones with the suastic cross. Its not like its going to be used against anyone anymore :D

 

EDIT: Darwanderer, Im sorry but your observation you left on my user CP area is just wrong. Flying wing will always beat conventional designs in efficiency, ALWAYS. Along with speed, It was the main drive for the design, not stealth. Your observation about Brit radars has no implication in this, you put that remark on a wrong foot.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Pilotasso

[Mustang]

Then there was the B-49, the great ancestor to the B-2 http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-49.htm

[DarkWanderer]

Flying wing will always beat conventional designs in efficiency, ALWAYS.

Aerodynamics is my job now, Pilotasso. You may think what you want, "the truth is out there".

[Pilotasso]

So lecture me. :) I want to know.

[DarkWanderer]

So lecture me. :) I want to know.

Won't even think. Eat your heart out now. :P

[Pilotasso]

Based on what? Im a mechanical engineer, I will not take seriously vague claims, and fluid flow is not exactly strange to me ;)

 

Get me some sources.

 

Allow me to get the head start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_wing

 

The first paragraph will be enlightening for you.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Pilotasso

[DarkWanderer]

Based on what? Im a mechanical engineer, I will not tajke seriously vague claims, and fluid flow is not exactly strange to me

Your instrument is screwdriver, mine is Navier-Stokes equation. Who's closer to the theory?..

 

The first paragraph will be enlightening for you.

Huh?..

However in practice an aircraft's wing must provide for flight stability and control; this imposes additional constraints on the aircraft design problem. Therefore, the expected gains in weight and drag reduction may be partially or wholly negated due to design compromises needed to provide stability and control. Alternatively, and more commonly, a flying wing type may suffer from stability and control problems.

And that's the case for reality. The only way to cancel this is high-performance FCS, which obviously were not available in WWII.

You score a

FAIL

Edited July 14, 2009 by DarkWanderer

[Pilotasso]

I would apreciate if you quote the whole paragraph not just the half that is convenient for you.

 

Not only that, you induce everybody else in error and your missed my point entirely.

 

1) I talked about wing efficiency you talk about handling. NOT the same thing, moreover, those aircraft did fly without FBW nevertheless, they just couldn’t force the edge of the envelope. Worse, you indicate that its efficiecy would be inferior in any case (on PVT) even with TVC...wow completely off target from reality and out of my context.

 

2) Its a fact that flying wings have a much higher lift to drag coefficient. If you dont know that then you should return to the books.

 

3) On the same praragraph, from the moment you add stuff to the wing because you have no FBW it seases to be a flying wing doesnt it?

 

Spare me with your screw driver joke (oh your so special! :P ). I did 4 degree navier stokes equations in matlab. A mechanical engineer is not the guy under the car changing oil, bud.

 

You demonstarted that Im speaking about oranges and you come about with apples, not only that you seem that your just discovering this stuff.

 

Be serious, you just started to study this in university didnt you?

Edited July 14, 2009 by Pilotasso

[leafer]

You got something against grease monkeys? :D

[DarkWanderer]

I would apreciate if you quote the whole paragraph not just the half that is convenient for you.

 

From the moment you add stuff to the wing because you have no FBW it seases to be a flying wing doesnt it?

I think your the one NOT seeing that your quote above describes a design that departs the flying wing concept and converges that of a conventional design.

You're starting to see things, *mate*. This passage is about the pure flying wing.

 

Its a fact that flying wings have a much higher lift to drag coefficient. If you dont know that then you should return to the books.

 

Spare me with your screw driver joke (oh your so special! :P ). I did 4 degree navier stokes equations in matlab. A mechanical engineer is not the guy under the car changing oil, bud.

 

You demonstarted that Im speaking about oranges and you come about with apples, not only that you seem that your just discovering this stuff.

 

Be serious, you just started to study this in university didnt you?

Ok, so you've finished? Now you're calm? If not, write one more "spectacular" post and then read what's written below.

 

Flying wings do have higher maximum L/D. But what they also have is:

- reduced longitudinal stability

- reduced efficiency of pitch controls

- no normal yaw controls

- no slip compensation

 

What that means?

- tendency to oscillate in cross axis, which may be defeated at the expence of maneuverability or by FBW

- heavy stall tendency in a slip, extrinsic for convenional scheme

- significantly increased drag on any maneuvers, since even a simple virage requires coordinated yaw input (=differential drag) to avoid slip

 

As a consequence, a design of flying wing loses to a conventional in terms of energy conserving in maneuvers and flight safety. Ho.229 is a fighter. That is, for the discussed purpose flying wing (as well as tailless) design is inferior to conventional, because it is less efficient at maneuvers. The results of it we can see in modern aviation - all successful modern 4/5gen fighters represent either unstable delta-canard, either conventional scheme.

 

Enough for a lecture?..

Edited July 14, 2009 by DarkWanderer

[shaggy]

Im not gonna get involved but I just want to say that its interesting to read from both of you. Not saying anyone is wrong or right, its just interesting to read. Seems like you both are filled with information, and my best bet is that both of you are ritght in some aspects and wrong in some. Lets not get on teh wrong side of this :) But again interesting to read

[Pilotasso]

You're starting to see things, *mate*. This passage is about the pure flying wing.

 

 

Ok, so you've finished? Now you're calm? If not, write one more "spectacular" post and then read what's written below.

 

Flying wings do have higher maximum L/D. But what they also have is:

- reduced longitudinal stability

- reduced efficiency of pitch controls

- no normal yaw controls

- no slip compensation

 

What that means?

- tendency to oscillate in cross axis, which may be defeated at the expence of maneuverability or by FBW

- heavy stall tendency in a slip, extrinsic for convenional scheme

- significantly increased drag on any maneuvers, since even a simple virage requires coordinated yaw input (=differential drag) to avoid slip

 

As a consequence, a design of flying wing loses to a conventional in terms of energy conserving in maneuvers and flight safety. Ho.229 is a fighter. That is, for the discussed purpose flying wing (as well as tailless) design is inferior to conventional, because it is less efficient at maneuvers. The results of it we can see in modern aviation - all successful modern 4/5gen fighters represent either unstable delta-canard, either conventional scheme.

 

Enough for a lecture?..

 

 

Wanderer, I specificaly said about the design filosophy of the Go-229 flying wing to be after efficiency.

 

You come about maximum turning capability, TVC stealth, pilot handling problems and whatnot. You are not talking about the same thing as I do. One thing is efficiency the other is max power (if your an engineer you should see the clear difference). Its 101 Aerodynamics a Flying wing provides much more lift and less drag (thus fuel efficincy and range) than any other config. Your other observations are off context. I dont care about high AOA of G limit or turn rates. For wich BTW you have nothing to guess from.

 

On another note Im perfectly calm, your the one pretending not to have written an inflamatory post. You called in your supposed high educational credentials in detriment of mine but nothing to back it up and severely lacking in credebility if you ask me.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Pilotasso

[Acedy]

:detective:

[DarkWanderer]

Whatever.

This statement:

Flying wing will always beat conventional designs in efficiency, ALWAYS.

is wrong, and it's you who've began with insults.

 

I'm out of this.

[Pilotasso]

Youll leave, but you always have to have the last word heh? Even insisting on missing my point.

 

I insulted you on your imagination. You can always report abuse, MODs whatched the thread closely and none of my posts have even been edited.