*Join me in War Thunder by signing up for free with this link* gjn.link/MilitaryAviationHistory and chose a complimentary free tank or plane as recieve an exclusive bonus.

@pleasedontdestroy4851

4 жыл бұрын

Military Aviation History really like your videos, happy your getting sponsored by war thunder one of my favorite games

@trance9158

4 жыл бұрын

World War 2 Online is a better more diverse game platform from Cornered Rat Studios.

@gebus5633

4 жыл бұрын

You don't really play the game anymore though, right? :D

@welbhloud

4 жыл бұрын

I love how it was war thunder that actually lead me to you years ago, and ultimately to MHV and Drachinifel and the whole band. Now the circle is complete and I am actually considering downloading it again to noob in some arcade

@peterstickney7608

4 жыл бұрын

@Jonathan Perry It's not going to fly because not only is it a one-of a kind significant aircraft, but the wings don't fit - while the wing panels were found with the center section, they're most likely from another airframe under construction. Given that these were hand-built prototypes made under (losing) wartime conditions, standardization and interchangeability weren't high priorities.

It was very stealthy, none were even seen in the air by the allies.

@wideyxyz2271

4 жыл бұрын

Foo Fighters lol.....

@robinraphael

4 жыл бұрын

The ghost

@robinraphael

4 жыл бұрын

@@wideyxyz2271 those were actually balls of light they would surround the plane and all of the components shut down

@Kukus-xy3gi

4 жыл бұрын

Cant argue with that

@TheLeonhamm

4 жыл бұрын

@Jesus H Christ LOL

Free to play game War Thunder. It only costs you tears, rage and lots and lots of patience. :-P

@JonnytheGinger

4 жыл бұрын

Been playing for 4 years and still haven't unlocked anything over 6.0 br. Oof

@polygondwanaland8390

4 жыл бұрын

Free to play, pay to win

@mgweible8162

4 жыл бұрын

Johnathan Hartmann feel free to join my squadron, we will help you level up

@umaisusmani2788

4 жыл бұрын

Love hate relationship yet addictive

@spartan963300

4 жыл бұрын

If you realise it's grindy and just play for fun, it's great

Stealth it is, when the AA, SAM and Radar crews note "Must have been the wind..." after they took a SC 1000 to the knee.

@rays5073

4 жыл бұрын

Video on F-117 shootdown, either of you?

@bigblue6917

4 жыл бұрын

SC 1000 to the knee. Are you sure that's not Skyrim

@ShadowFalcon

3 жыл бұрын

@@rays5073 Ah yes, the F-117 shootdown over Serbia. You know what I find funny? It only happened once. So one combat loss, compared with 1700 sorties (400 over Serbia, and 1300 over Iraq, both in possession of pretty advanced Air Defences for their time) that we know of. Why are people boasting of a 0.06% succesrate again?

@rays5073

3 жыл бұрын

@@ShadowFalcon because it happened exactly once it's an interesting case to look at

@ShadowFalcon

3 жыл бұрын

@@rays5073 Well I suppose, if you like looking at what make statistical flukes happen. But as a case for "Stealth not working", I'm afraid the statistics are against you.

Stealth or not, it is still one of the coolest looking planes ever designed.

@HellbirdIV

3 жыл бұрын

The Ho 229 is one of those awesome WW2 experimental designs that looks straight out of science fiction. You'd only have to tweak a few tiny details and you could put it in Star Wars almost as-is.

@die1mayer

3 жыл бұрын

@@HellbirdIV well, Horten Brothers were glider designers and a splaceplane is basically a glider send into space for reentry and flying in a atmospheric body.

@donwoodward4771

3 жыл бұрын

HellbirdIV absolutely

@ObamaGaming44

3 жыл бұрын

Definitely. And the design was still very innovative in spite of the lack of stealth capabilities. Even the people at Northrop-Grumman who made the Ho 229 replica were impressed by how advanced it was for its time

@Schlipperschlopper

3 жыл бұрын

Its so cool that it deserves to be built as airworthy 1:1 replica!

Nearly forty years after WW2 Horton: did I mention it was stealthy? Aviation industry: Sorry. Who are you again?

@JessHull

3 жыл бұрын

lol

@die1mayer

3 жыл бұрын

Aviation industry: Stuck with fuel inefficient hull and wing design for a century because we are risk averse

@johndoe1909

3 жыл бұрын

@@die1mayer well, this design had all kinds of major problems in terms of stability, something which plagues all flying wings. It's really only solved partly today as we have fly by wire systems which can compensate. If stealth actually is important you also have to introduce oddly shaped surfaces which only adds to the problem. While a nice concept, its debatable if it's worth it in the long run. It should also be noted that the compensation we are talking about actually decreases efficiency as well.

@user6008

3 жыл бұрын

@Sean m If you think 600 MPH is somehow not an advantage in a dogfight with say a P -51 flying at 440 MPH....I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you should buy.

@petriew2018

3 жыл бұрын

@@user6008 if you think a barely controllable 600 MPH with a turning radius naval captains would find funny is somehow an advantage in a dogfight, i'd love to know what you paid for that property in the first place.

BLUF: Q: Was it stealthy? A: Kinda, probably, sorta. Q: Was it stealthy on purpose? A: Probably not. No.

@neiloflongbeck5705

4 жыл бұрын

It's just like the BAe Hawk - put on the gun pod and the RCS was doubled.

@josephstabile9154

3 жыл бұрын

Stealthy is as stealthy does, I always says. Flyin' over the channel at 600mph with a low enuf radar signature that they can't scramble a plane fast/soon enuf to intercept you before you hit 'em in the knee w/ an SC1000--well, that sort of sounds like a good 1945 plan!

@avincent

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you!

@seanmalloy7249

3 жыл бұрын

Reimar's claims about the design feel very much like a case of "Oooh -- 'stealth' is the big buzzword now, and the 229 looks a lot like the YB-49, which was known to have a lower radar signature than other bombers. If I claim that the ersatz stuff we had to make do with was part of a deliberate design process to make it stealthy, maybe I can puff my reputation as an aircraft designer". It was designed according to Reimar's prejudices about what he wanted to build, and that it came out resembling later aircraft that either deliberately or accidentally have reduced RCS was irrelevant to the plane he wanted.

@donlawrence1428

2 жыл бұрын

Stealthy on purpose? Most certainly yes. Horten did not have the time or resources to perfect the materials. But he did try. His aerodynamic contribution is huge. It is very difficult to fly without a tail. He did it in grand fashion. He must have had a very good reason, like stealth. I imagine the politicians did not want to introduce stealth technology without effective countermeasures.

7:47 Diplomacy 100...

The Aviation Archeology paper summed up my thoughts exactly: the design of the aircraft was chosen for aerodynamics rather than stealth capabilities.

@videoviewer2008

3 жыл бұрын

Not too stealth with those spinning engines on full display.

Meanwhile Jack Northrop with his flying wings...

@martijn9568

4 жыл бұрын

People really should talk about Jack Northrop more when talking about flying wings

@DonVigaDeFierro

4 жыл бұрын

Ah yes, the ones that actually flew...

@larrysimpson6135

4 жыл бұрын

@@DonVigaDeFierro You left out the part that the YB-49 (Norhtrup's flying wing) also crashed and killed multiple test pilots. These modern B2s nowadays are flown by computer to keep them from crashing.

@kestrel16c32

4 жыл бұрын

@@DonVigaDeFierro Some of the flying wings from the Horten brothers flew as well.

@user-do5zk6jh1k

4 жыл бұрын

Internet: B-2 COPIED HO-229 Jack Northrop: Am I a joke to you? Northrop Company: Yes you are, and that is why you're fired.

Those giant, unshielded intakes alone would have given a huge frontal return. That's why modern stealth aircraft utilize ducting, grid structures, or both to shield the turbine fans from direct radar return. (Edit: Fantastic breakdown of this subject. Much appreciated.)

@AbcXyz-rn2lz

Жыл бұрын

And the big cross section. UK and US already had huge gun laying(auto aim) 4m wave 20deg radar arrays. UK had the whole coast lined with them; buzz bombs and bombers just got past shells sometimes

I believe Reimar Horten's "stealth" claims involving charcoal were highly influenced by popular press speculations about the F-117A. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter revealed the existence of the previously "deep black" stealth fighter project. There was no reason for the revelation except crude party politics. Over the four years of his administration, Carter had acquired a reputation for Southern Baptist-style "no dancing on Sunday" moralism and a consequent indifference to matters affecting national security at a time when the Soviet military establishment was perceived as both highly advanced technologically and highly aggressive strategically (e.g. Afghanistan, Horn of Africa, Cuba...) By holding a press conference with displays of the exotic-looking Nighthawk, Carter hoped to bolster his creds, so to speak, at the cost of the closely guarded secrecy exercised by the Air Force and the always security-conscious Lockheed Skunkworks personnel. The photos provided to the press showed an all-black aircraft at a time when most USAF fighters were painted horizon grey. Then as now the American press corps was over-staffed with J-school grads with virtually zero knowledge of anything scientific or technical. However, as a remedy for their intellectual shallowness, they had THE ROLODEX - a contact list of self-described experts willing to backfill the ignorance of reporters with often ill-informed speculation. The Rolodex mavens concluded the black color must have important siginicance to "radar invisibility", mainly because they had read the term "radiation adsorbent materials" in a back-issue of Aviation Week. They also were conversant with the terms "graphite" and "carbon fiber", since they were popular topics in Scientific American... ipso facto presto chango! The F-117 therefor must be coated in some kind of RAM made primarily of carbon, hence the black color. Of course, none of the "reliable sources" knew anything about the Have Blue prototype and its totally un-carbonized desert-camouflaged paint scheme.

@nunyabidniz2868

3 жыл бұрын

Jimmy Carter is a great humanitarian & I'm certain a very nice man, but was an utter disaster as a president. He fired a general for straight up telling him the truth, that he couldn't abandon S. Korea the way he wanted to do. Heck, if he *had* gone ahead & done that, I think my dad (among other KW vets who'd lost friends there) would have sanctioned him no matter what the Secret Service tried to do after the Norks overran S. Korea. At any rate, he wasn't the right man for the job, but he set the stage for Ronald Reagan to face down the Evil Empire in the highest-stakes poker game ever played. Millennials have no idea what it was like to live with the doomsday clock set to five seconds from midnight their entire life. Bubba Jeffy was another disaster as a president, but he's well remembered now because of the economic boom he was gifted by the fall of the Soviets. Yet he never once thanked Ronald Reagan for making him look so good...

@Phos9

3 жыл бұрын

Nunya Bidniz Reagan ending the Cold War? What a joke. Given what Singlaub got up to shortly thereafter, it seems highly likely there were other reasons for the firing they couldn’t talk about at the time.

@kristerkowalski5125

3 жыл бұрын

How could there be photos of the F117 when the first photos of it were only released in the late 1980s, during the late Reagan or Bush Administration? Carter only revealed the existence of the stealth concept. And yes, there were a lot of misconceptions about it, but this was the 1980s. No one knew what stealth was, it was a top secret project with only the absolute fundamentals been revealed, that it somehow makes planes radar "invisible". Its a bit arrogant to call out "intellectual shallowness" on the parts of white house journalists in hindsight. Of course nowadays the knowledge about the basic concept of stealth is widespread but back than this was completely new and top secret. The horton brothers made the stealth claim first in the autobiography, that was released in the early 90s, and was obviously influenced by the reveal of the B2 bomber a few years earlier and its superficial similiarities with the horton 9.

@malkavianstr450

3 жыл бұрын

Unless you read that one obscure publication that was the science of the day.

@PRH123

3 жыл бұрын

Sure the soviets knew about it from day 2. In fact the work of a soviet scientist on stealth technology is credited with getting the program started.

Sorry if someone already mentioned this but amazon currently lists "only the wing" as a reprint coming for September 2020 at CAD$33.00

@s.a.d.9277

3 жыл бұрын

ComVlad not going to lie after this video I preordered that thing in a matter of 30 minutes

@Skorpse

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for this info! I will be getting myself a copy, I can't wait.

@kitnaylor7267

3 жыл бұрын

Yas! I've been trying to get my hands on this book for years.

@richardpaulhall

3 жыл бұрын

Softcover, ISBN 9781944466381 Publisher: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, 2020

Those 2 huge engine intakes would look like a spotlight on a radar display.

@watcherzero5256

3 жыл бұрын

They would, and one thing neglected in the American mockup as well was while the wings were wood and reasonably stealthy, the main centrifuge was steel and would have reflected a lot of radiowaves itself.

@denniswalsh8476

3 жыл бұрын

And first stage compressor blades are big reflectors also.

@uberhk4015

3 жыл бұрын

You base this claim upon your own extensive testing with your multi million dollar r&d facility w TEAMS of experts???

@Nipplator99999999999

3 жыл бұрын

@@uberhk4015 nope only on my A&P specialist contact experience with Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky, and personal research done with my security clearance during my down time.

@Nipplator99999999999

3 жыл бұрын

@@uberhk4015 wait l guess you can say yes, I do.

This has been my favorite plane since i was a kid. I remember learning about it from lucasarts game "secret weapons of the luftwaffe". Watching video now

@richardmack330

4 жыл бұрын

You sure you don't mean "Secret weapons over Normandy" ?. I had that game.

@ex59neo53

4 жыл бұрын

I still have the game with p80 and Go 229 add-ons

@ex59neo53

4 жыл бұрын

@@richardmack330 No , "over Normandy " appeared years after :)

@richardmack330

4 жыл бұрын

@@ex59neo53 Ah I see, you could unlock a Tie fighter and X wing in that one too :)

@timonsolus

4 жыл бұрын

Richard Mack : ‘Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe’ was a PC game released in 1991. Yes, nearly 30 years ago.

33:57 - That's almost exactly what I was going to comment. Also the coincidence that Mr Horten only started talking about "stealth" in the 80's, AFTER the F-117 was produced.

@ancaplanaoriginal5303

3 жыл бұрын

And after the A-12 and it's derivatives had been flying for over two decades.

@lucastekkan

3 жыл бұрын

@@ancaplanaoriginal5303 the A-12 ? It never went over concept stage

@ancaplanaoriginal5303

3 жыл бұрын

@@lucastekkan the A-12 archangel flew, mate

@lucastekkan

3 жыл бұрын

@@ancaplanaoriginal5303 Oh, I though you were refering to the A-12 Avenger II, that one never flew and has more to do with flying wings than the Archangel

@ancaplanaoriginal5303

3 жыл бұрын

​@@lucastekkan Sigh, why you guys can't check the internet before replying to a comment on the internet?

The compressor blades were right up front with the air intakes being fully open to radar penetration. The blades would reflect a huge cross section due to their metal construction and rotation. It is obvious that RCS was never remotely considered during the design process. The instability of the plane only highlights that it was never fully tested and didn't reach a final design stage.

Westland Aircraft, based in my home town of Yeovil, experimented with various flying wing and tailless designs before WW2. There was their Postal Monoplane flying wing was designed that way purely to increase range but couldn't fly through ground effect and crashed on take off. Then there was the Pterodactyl series that looked very similar to Horten's designs though they were propellor powered, mostly pusher types. This is possibly the reason for the use of the name Pterodactyl at the time.

@stachelsamurai

3 жыл бұрын

I wanted to refer to them too. Thanks for mentioning them.^^ As I was asking myself if he was thinking it was funny due to the report stating the name of the ancient flying animal or that they thought the germans got their hands on those aircraft.

you don't pay in money when it comes to war thunder

@wideyxyz2271

4 жыл бұрын

BS&T..........

@bificommander

4 жыл бұрын

We accept credit cards, PayPal, and firstborn sons.

@reggiekoestoer1511

4 жыл бұрын

Would tears and salt suffice? :D

@IrishCarney

3 жыл бұрын

Oh they hope you pay in money, which is why the game exists. Grind the hard way, or pay the easy way...

When I saw it in the restoration hangar at the Smithsonian, it was a highlight of the day. I can't wait to see it fully restored (and for you to do an Inside the Cockpit). Also, the Do-335 is much larger than I ever realized, and the Ar-234 is smaller than I ever thought. The low wing of the 335 is above the high wing of the 234.

Great and accurate program. Many forget that the Horten brothers were building flying wing gliders before adding an engine. Low drag. Increased range. Stealth? RCS? what's that got to do with a glider?

@peterstickney7608

4 жыл бұрын

And, in fact, an Ho IV was flown and tested here in the US postwar. I always wanted to build one, and a Fauvel (French straight-wing flying wing sailplane) to go with it.

@keithmohrhoff7443

3 жыл бұрын

Well, if you're in a glider over enemy territory, obviously, evading pursuing aircraft would be difficult at best. If one could be harder to detect, one could fly for longer periods unmolested.

@aramos3639

2 жыл бұрын

@@keithmohrhoff7443 so what would be tugging the glider that has engines and somehow no rcs

The Japanese actually did some stealth research during WW2, with some studies into radar absorbing coatings. They got some good results, but the coatings were too heavy for aircraft with the power available at the time.

@kurumi394

4 жыл бұрын

The Japanese made the Yagi-Uda antenna system in the 1920s, created stealth coating, and developed radio guided bombs and missiles. All that and the fuckers still resorted to suicide attacks.

@billdewahl7007

4 жыл бұрын

​@@kurumi394 Well they also had trouble reproducing anything the germans gave them and these suicide attacks were rather effective.

@Exospray

4 жыл бұрын

@@kurumi394 well by the end of the war going up against the US was sucide anyway, might as well do it in a more economical fashion, which kamikaze attacks were over the number of planes needed for a hit.

@whtalt92

Жыл бұрын

@@Exospray Arguably: starting a war against the US in the first place was suicidal considering the difference in industrial infrastructure & resources available. Aaaand we're back at the point why this thing was made of wood in the first place: resources.

Great video as usual. Glad you covered this topic. I did see the documentary and always wondered why Horton wasn't snapped up by a major aircraft manufacturer after the war.

Those engines end any pretense to stealth.

@Desrtfox71

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, exactly.

@mattbowden4996

4 жыл бұрын

Compared to what? I understand that the prop on a piston aircraft is a significant radar reflector, so simply replacing it with the much smaller surface area of a pair of jet intakes could well reduce to RCS of the aircraft. I suspect (and there truly is no data to back this up) that the Ho-229 did indeed have a smaller RCS than any equivalent aircraft sized from WW2 - but if it did it was by accident, not design.

@user-do5zk6jh1k

4 жыл бұрын

@@mattbowden4996 I think he means the non-ducted intake. Of course, even an exposed compressor blade is far better than a prop, but still bad enough to debunk the internet historians.

@mattbowden4996

4 жыл бұрын

@@user-do5zk6jh1k I suspect you're quite right. However, for all the fact that I don't actually believe the Horton's were deliberately trying to build a Stealth fighter, Wayne Brinker's logic is fallacious - just because the solution was not perfect, that does not mean it had no effect.

@waynebrinker8095

4 жыл бұрын

@@user-do5zk6jh1k Exactly.

There was actually a documentary about the Ho 229 where they recreated one and did Radar testing on it. The people who tested it are the same who develop modern stealth technology. While it was far more stealthy then the average plane you got very strong radar returns from the cockpit and engine intakes. These two return sources were much worse than the average aircraft. They had reduced returns from the rest of the aircraft minus the fuel tanks which were easily detected. All of these were only in comparison to radar of that time and not modern technology. If anyone had seen this documentary and know anything about it’s veracity please leave a comment below.

@wolf310ii

2 жыл бұрын

Did you even watched this video? He is talking about this documentary in the video.

Funny thing is, no one really considers the early Northrop flying wing designs, that predate the Horton, as stealth aircraft even though they were built by the same company as the B2 spirit. I think it comes down to the stereotype that many of us have about German engineering and the almost mythical proportions that many think Germany was ahead of us during the war.

@FiveCentsPlease

3 жыл бұрын

+ Kalyn Stalinski Stealth was not part of the 1920s flying wing theories that Northrop and the Hortens based their ideas on. Wings were considered fast and fuel efficient.

@kalynstalinski8375

3 жыл бұрын

@@FiveCentsPlease exactly.

Great video. Unfortunately, debunking urban myths and conspiracy theories is a thankless task, since the "believers" will continue to believe. As a parallel and comparison you could have mentioned the Northrop XB-35 bomber development commenced in 1941 in the US. The main reason for a flying wing in that design was to reduce parasitic drag, allowing longer range, higher speed, and higher payload in a smaller airframe compared with a conventional wing-and-fuselage design (i.e. the competing Consolidated XB-36). Stealth certainly wasn't a consideration.

@stevewindisch7400

2 жыл бұрын

Well, it is happening so much now that it appears that someone in the field has to find some historic factoid to debunk to be "a made man", even if it doesn't actually need debunking. And as for conspiracy, the original one was the Kennedy Assassination, and it is fact that most people still believe it was a conspiracy (including a majority of well educated and informed people). So in that case it is not "mindless belief", it is lack of credible evidence to "debunk" (despite all the attempts over the years). But that particular circumstance does not matter in any other case of suspected conspiracy, each must be judged by the evidence.

@seamusmustapha8378

2 жыл бұрын

I heard it was 1939

@EdwardRLyons

2 жыл бұрын

@@seamusmustapha8378 Jack Northrup produced concepts for a flying wing in the 1930s, but the actual development contract was not awarded until 1941.

@Jgasporrap

Жыл бұрын

I think Northrop had a version even earlier than 1941...remember a documentary saying 1934 or 36

@jeffk464

Жыл бұрын

@@stevewindisch7400 Yeah, the Kenned conspiracy is just nuts. But the moon landing was definitely faked, everybody knows you can't orbit a flat earth.

I am also surprised by such records that this plane is invisible. In fact, this aircraft uses the same airframe layout as the B2. This scheme is called a flying wing and was first implemented in Horten.

@FiveCentsPlease

3 жыл бұрын

+ARRant The Horten brothers did not invent the flying wing. It was a design theory explored by aircraft builders in several nations stating in the 1920s.

Chris, that was an outstanding episode. You put a stake through the heart of the Horton Stealth claims.

I can't wait to watch this, glad to see it's doing well, 7200 views in two hours is huge!

Hi Mate, thanx for this interesting episode. When being "on call" as a doctor, sitting in my ready-room during nights with literally no entertainment, I occasionally stumble over "N24". From 2AM they loop-like broadcast -"the constructionsites of the greatest bridges in the world" (a vid that totally refers to American potomac-bridges, ignoring the 9 greatest bridges -all sited in China) -"the greatest swimming structures", made up from US-navy stock footage -"the greatest oil-drilling sites".... -"Hitler's helpers" (Timelife) -"Hitler's dogs" -"women" -"the Höchstmarschall's dresses and uniforms"... -yeah I made that one up and of course: "The nazi stealth bomber" (from national geographic) I saw it (partially) several times and I admire the approach by the Smithonian's Courators, putting the plane (or a mock-up) on a Raytheon's (or Lockheed's ?!?) measurement-rack, where they took the scientific approach and measured the radar-reflection of the actual bird. And in the original American documentary, they clearly say "no, the Ho 229 was NO stealth-plane at all". Well they said such for those, willing to listen. The Luftwaffe -during the days when it still had some kind of strategic capacity, kept on following the roots of Richthofen's bon-mot "there's no way to camouflage a flying plane". Especially the early aces -and particularly those from WW-I experienced how important it is to get into initiative and to keep the upper hand during dogfights. Planes (see the 109) were race-horses, to impress the enemy with speed, maneuverability and climb-rate, and devastating fire-power. Does an apparatus that consideres ramming-tactics really think about preserving a single plane and a single pilot? The Hortons did a great job. They understood that constructing a plane without a stabilizer could improve everything from speed to range. Starting from the paradigm "A perfect plane needs no stabilizer" was a visionary idea indeed. AFAIK in the Deutsches Reich, there was no radar-test-facility to accurately measure the reflections of plane-sized objects and doing spectral analyses. The department of counter-espinage (Abwehr) was related to the Navy and so the little knowledge available was to be found there: The Reichsmarine experimented with snorkles with a low-signature profile, also coated with a dielectric-diamagnetic compound: artificial rubber, that was filled with carbon particles and ferro-magnetic particles. The ferromagnetic particles were to absorb the radio-waves by generating an electric current that then was taken up by the carbon-particles without creating a back-pulse. But even in the Marine the little knowledge about funkmesstechnik (radar) was not commuted properly. The radar-operators on submarines knew exactly how their passive radar-detector worked: by overlay amplification. So they suspected their own _passive_ devices to pulse back into the antenna and ampliflying the signal they were detecting! That effect indeed took place but on a microscopic scale! Due to very bad communication from the development-department and the Abwehr -who tried to keep their thin layer of knowledge even more mystique, the under informed operators preferred to secretly turn off their passive FuMuB-7-devices making it totally useless. The contemporary knowledge was rather limited -on how waves travel, -how they can be emitted -the basic principles of reflection -the basic usefulness of polarization It was known that the lenght of wave (and their divided parts) are suitable to detect objects from a certain size on which helped a lot in filtering out objects that you do not want to see (birds, clouds, shrapnels, chaffs), but while detecting waves from any length was quite simple, in those days there was no way to modulate the emitted wave-length. The pulse-rate-generator that provided itself a highly refined pulse from a constant wafe-length, was usually a magnetron (like in microwave-ovens from the 90th) And there unfortunately is no way to alter the wafe-lenght generated by a magnetron! For each wafe-lenght you want to emit, you need a speclially designed magnetron! Today we can emit multiple wafe-length. We can suppress sidelobes on military radars, we can camouflage military radars by imitating the side-lobes of turning radars (while using stationary phased arrays). On the other side, we can analyze the side-lobe characteristics of foreign civil radars (such as on marchant-ships) and recognize minimal but characteristic imperfections to identify the radar installation like a fingerprint. Does the ship roll while it operates? -making the antenna run in imperfect RPMs? We know the lenght of the sea-waves -so that could give us the size of the other ship and its positioning relatively to the heading of the waves -and then we can imitate those characteristics, camouflaging the radar-signature of a modern vessel. We can detect doppler effects to measure the targets heading and we can emit false doppler-signals prepared to camouflage our position and heading. Today we know about LPI-radar and finally we also know about the phenomenums around reflection: -An object that is also diamagnetic and electric conductive, reflects all waves that are below its total size (also depending on polarization -as planes are far wider than high!) -Waves above its size are partially absorbed by the surface and pulsed back from the edges (Hyugen's principle) -Waves below 2 MHz penetrate "absorbing surfaces" and when hitting inner structures that form 90° angles, are fully reflected back (total reflection), appearing on radar like a flare I'm tired of responding. It's layed out for everyone to read it, Jane's and Wikipedia will help anyone, willing to inform himself. I agree with you totally: How could the Horton's plan for some technical aspects around radar detection that the research- and strategic planning departments kept from sight to each others? They could not. Never the less they attempted to construct a plane that was so perfect that it not required a stabilizer. Worth wile honouring today and forever -indeed.

This is going to be good. :)

@USSAnimeNCC-

4 жыл бұрын

Drachinifel God lord it Drach :D

@TannithVQ

4 жыл бұрын

And so it was :)

@wideyxyz2271

4 жыл бұрын

Good day to you sir! When is the joint project on flying boats?

@Tuning3434

4 жыл бұрын

+Drachinifel Prime!

@davem2369

4 жыл бұрын

Back to the water with you 😉 If it hasnt got a tailhook or hull its not you area or era!

Having the compressor blades visible to radar from the frontal arc would not have been terribly helpful in reducing RCS in any case...

30:10 - you could say the alleged mentions about the stealth characteristics are stealthily hidden in the files. I'll show myself out.

The Horten Brothers were inspired by Alexander Lippisch and Alexander Soldenhof. The Horten's were avid pre WWII, flying wing sail plane enthusiasts, they constructed numerous aircraft prior to the HO-229 which is a incredible engineering achievement.

Kenneth Arnold spotted it in the sky. The rear-end was unstable and would bob up and down in flight. When Arnold described what he saw, he said it looked like a saucer skipping across the water. he was not saying it was disc-shaped, like a saucer. He was describing how the bobbing tail made it look like a saucer or stone would lift and fall, as it skipped across the water. It was helpful to redescribe the thing as saucer-like out of context for obvious reasons, but it means the whole "flying saucer" meme was an error... or misdirection.

Stealth did not become a factor at all, let alone an important factor, in warplane design until after the introduction of surface to air missiles which were far faster than aircraft. That was long after WW2.

@colinkelly5420

3 жыл бұрын

Yep. The only thing that could pass for stealth technology in WWII would have been active jamming technologies, be it things like Mandrel or Window/Chaff which was to blind radar.

@useodyseeorbitchute9450

3 жыл бұрын

@@colinkelly5420 No. In WW2 stealth was achieved by using proper materials like canvas and plywood. :D

@michaelharris679

3 жыл бұрын

And in a world where early warning radar was the only radar you really needed to worry about, the frontal RCS would have been the only thing worth worrying about. You definitely can't tell that a plane is stealthy by looking at it, but there are some features that will fundamentally increase the RCS that you can see by eye. Exposed turbine/compressor blades are a big one, and the air intake design makes it hard for me to believe it would have been that much more stealthy than other aircraft.

@timonsolus

3 жыл бұрын

@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 : Nope - a Swordfish biplane could still be detected on radar, despite the fabric covered fuselage and wings.

@HiroNguy

3 жыл бұрын

@@timonsolus That biplane had a lot of unshielded reflective metal surfaces. The 229 less so.

The Horten brothers built some really stealthy gliders in the mid-30s. ;)

@Attaxalotl

3 жыл бұрын

Technically the Ho-229 was the stealthiest aircraft in the war, as it was never seen flying.

@ZaHandle

2 жыл бұрын

@@Attaxalotl actually there were several aircraft more stealthy than that it doesn’t even have a name or blueprint

@Attaxalotl

2 жыл бұрын

@@ZaHandle oh wow That is how to do stealth

Thank you for debunking the myths that this plane ever flew, or had any 'stealth' technology' designed for it. I also appreciate you providing references, so much YT WW2 content is mostly BS or just edits from old tv documentaries.

@thatdude3938

2 жыл бұрын

It flew unpowered though

The plane was quite stable. It incorporated the bell lift curve that NASA only rediscovered in 2015. There are many scale rc models of the HO 229 and are quite stable.

As a life long flying wing fanboy - and, thus, a long time student of Jack Northrop's history & obsession with the flying wing - it really is a shame how this idiotic 'stealth' garbage just completely minimizes the REAL achievements of the 229. I mean, to think that these two brothers with next to no resources managed to essentially match the same achievements of a Jack Northrop with the weight of a major aeronautic corporation(s) behind him. It really can't be overexagerated, the flying wing has always been a benchmark design that was struggled with due to its inherent instability issues. Nevermind that these two brothers with basically no resources of reliability had also essentially won a military contract with their design - I mean, it's absolutely unbelievable when some "random" wins a military contract with an individual troop firearm; but, to do so with little funding & resources... with a damn AIRPLANE?! Positively unbelievable! ...but, no, instead we have to talk about these idiotic "stealth" claims, as if ANY validity of them would have even had a meaningful impact on a war that was in no way dependent on radar detection technology. It's a self-defeating claim - time, resources, and design compromises, had they actually been spent on "stealth technology", would have been of much greater value used in other areas/design goals. If you don't believe me, then consider how, even today, very VERY few pieces of military equipment have a meaningful focus on "stealth design/technology"; [speaking of the US of course] we have a couple production aircraft, some large scale drone aircraft, a big glorified prototype boat of debatable value, a pretty bitchin' ground-up stealth helicopter that got canceled right after wasting enough money on it to be production ready, probably a ground vehicle or two(because OBVIOUSLY "stealth" makes EVERYTHING better...) that's escaping my memory, and, outside of those, some prototypes & 'one-offs'(weren't the 'Bin Laden raid' helicopters something like Black Hawks with some post-design[no doubt learned from the Comanche program] 'stealthifications'?). It's 2020 - and "stealth" ANYTHING is but a miniscule amount of military equipment. Don't get me wrong, the knowledge gained from the huge efforts to research "stealth technology" are now considered on some level during the design of a lot of equipment, especially aircraft - but, in regards to purpose built machinery with the #1 goal of compromising its design in the necessary ways to minimize the effective RCS, this just DOESN'T happen, not in the ways in which the B-2 & F-117 were quite literally compromised by design specifically for the minimization of RCS. It's just not worth it today - and it certainly wouldn't have been worth it in WWII, where the focus on radar detection was utterly nonexistent compared to its mandatory use today. All because, apparently, designing a legitimately flyable flying wing on a shoe string budget during WWII is, I guess, just not impressive enough in its own right...

"I went to the National Archives in Kew - but they were closed, because Pandemic. Only joking, this was filmed ages ago!"

I found this excellent; not only informative and well researched but your mannerisms and demeanor show a genuine appreciation for your subject. Kudos!!!

"if you want to sell a story, questions get in the way" I will be stealing this line it is epic!

@crankychris2

2 жыл бұрын

Here is my favorite [stolen] line: 'If you can't dazzle your investors with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullsh*t'.

So "Only the wing" is coming out this September in paperback as a reissue. Just tossing that out there to everyone interested.

Also I think one of the other negatives of the Ho 229 "hype" is how it has led to an overlooking of contemporary N-9, YB-35, and YB-49.

@etwas013

3 жыл бұрын

They weren't overlooked? But they were all copies of Hortens' pre war flying wings Ho-1,2 and 3.

@ingen6051

3 жыл бұрын

The Americans and Germans were making flying wings at the same time, no one stole anything.

@lucastekkan

3 жыл бұрын

@@etwas013 they weren't copies lol, they don't share a single tear of similarities other than being a flying wing

@etwas013

3 жыл бұрын

@@lucastekkan Ho-1,2,3 and N-2,3, YB-49 etc are obvously very similar. Btw, before Northrop saw Hortens' work, his designes were akin to X-216, clearly a very different frame that is only partly a flying wing. B-2 also shares exactly the same engine arrangement as Ho-229 so I am pretty sure Northrop was copying Hortens' work for decades.

@lucastekkan

3 жыл бұрын

@@etwas013 B-2 shares nothing with the Horten. It uses 4 turbofan engines hidden in its wing, nothing like the 229.

You have to remember a TON of documentation was destroyed before the end of the war you can't always have a source. Not everything was tied up in a pretty bow.

Extremely persuasive and well researched investigation of RCS properties of this aircraft. Hats off!

hortons behaviour was really pseudoscientific, publishing claims of stealth from argentinia years after he probably found out that that was a thing

~28 minutes in, and I have to say, while I've always thought it had some "Stealth" aspects to it (initially, as a child, because of it's resemblance to the B-2 Spirit, I admit) as I grew up and learned more about Aircraft and Radar and their histories, I've come to understand that any "Stealth" aspects it had was because of luck. British Home Radar at the time likely would've seen a smaller profile than it's actual size because of it's construction, but in reality that would mean that it would still show up on the Radar, but any planes sent up to intercept or engage it would be looking for something smaller, like a Bf-109, Fw-190 or even a He-162. It may have also meant that it would be a bit closer before being detected, but again, unlike modern, designed-for-stealth aircraft, it wouldn't be "too late" for a counter of some sort. And while "everyone" loves the idea of a big fat flying wing bomber (the proposed Horton Amerika Bomber) with Nazi Markings making a surprise appearance over New York and dropping dirty bombs on the US, in reality any number of radar stations, ships, or aircraft would see them approaching. Maybe they would've been thought to be smaller planes, but honestly I doubt that the Horton Flying Wing Amerika Bomber would be capable of flight using the same construction techniques, there'd need to be a lot more metal in it, increasing it's signature further, even on those now-primitive Radar systems. Now to watch the rest of your video.

@jer6944

4 жыл бұрын

DarkTau (

@taproom113

3 жыл бұрын

FYI

Chris, This was fantastic. It's definitely one of the most even-handed and reasonable assessments I've seen on this subject. I think one of the downsides of all this noise over "Stealth" (Hmm- Noise Jamming) is that it hides the true accomplishments of the Horten brothers. With no official backing (At least in the beginning). no funds, an epic boldness, and an amazing amount of Bureaucratic Jujitsu, they managed to build an advanced jet fighter in what was basically a garage.

@watcherzero5256

3 жыл бұрын

And their motivation was purely in avoiding the draft. I dont know how I feel about it really, they didnt do it for either a love of aviation or a sense of patriotism, purely to avoid themselves being called up to join the fighting.

@peterstickney7608

3 жыл бұрын

@@watcherzero5256 Uhm, where do you get that from? Walter Horten was a Fighter Ace - Adolf Galland's wingman during the Battle of Britain. (And an incredible deflection shooter - Galland used to chastise him for setting a bad example by making long-range high angle off shots) Reimar was also a Luftwaffe pilot. Say what you will, if you're dodging the draft by flying combat, it seems that you're doing it wrong.

Horton knew about stealth but refered to it as radar camouflage. Below is a 1950 article he wrote. Remember, no inkling of what the US was doing came out till the 1980's. Flying Wing Fighter "Horten IX" by Doctor Reimar Horten (as translated by: Fernando Walter Siarez, Buenos Aires, Argentina) (The original article was titled "Ala volante Caza 'Horten IX' ", by Dr. Reimar Horten, published by Revista Nacional de Aeronautica, (today: Aeroespacio, Revista Nacional Aeronautica y Espacial) " May 1950, number 5, pages 19-20; Buenos Aires, Argentina. We thank them for allowing the translation and publication here for all to share. The article is being provided in both English and Spanish.) The performances and qualities a modern fighter must have are very varied. In peacetime, the fighter development is always oriented towards its maximum speed, despite that there are many performances and qualities that determine its value during combat missions. If the fighter is 100 Kilometers/hour [about 60-mph -Trans] faster than the bomber plane, it can overtake this latter and absolute speed is a secondary subject. During combat between fighters, higher speed is an advantage, as is higher climb rate and higher ceiling. Turning radius or time for a complete turn, are other performances that are not less important, to mention some of them. To avoid combat, maximum speed is the only decisive one, but this is not the mission of a fighter. To intercept and achieve air supremacy, it is advantageous the higher starting position. If surprise factor fails, combat transforms into a "turning" combat. To be able to fly with small diameter turns, low wing loading is needed, from which a big wing results, what is advantageous for the practical ceiling. With this wing, take off and landing speeds, mainly the latter, are kept in an easy to dominate envelope and the amount of fuel carried aboard - that in jet aircraft can never be sufficiently large- allows satisfactory range values. The big wing does not decrease largely the maximum speed in jet fighters, because that is influenced only by aerodynamic design. This phenomenon comes from the fact that at such velocities, sonic speed is frequently achieved, so getting big additional drags. So, for example, the swept wing provides a mean to delay this drag increase, to much higher speeds. Other factors of equal importance as speed, ceiling and turning radius also determine the combat value of a fighter. To describe them all will take us too far and is out of the scope of this article. I want only to remark the visibility of the aircraft. In the past, the detector was human eye, later it was the grounded radio that provided guidance until the airplane met the enemy. Today the pilot has the assurance of recognizing, even at night, an airplane flying many kilometers far, by means of the radar. In the past, planes were covered with camouflage paintings, and with the advent of radar, the already considered antique wood constructions, turned into something modern again. As reflection of electric waves on metallic surfaces is good, such is the image on the radar screen; on the contrary, on wood surfaces, that reflection is little, these resulting barely visible on the radar. A fighter must use the surprise factor, especially at night; to do that, the plane must be built in wood, not only for the above mentioned circumstance, but also because the wood surface resistance to impacts is not necessary inferior to that of metallic surfaces, as was shown by tests. Also, those resistances are regarded of secondary importance, because with modern big gage guns, an impact means practically a total loss. As far as landing speed is concerned, I want to say some words, because very often it is given a secondary importance: personally, I consider it very important because "cold losses" depend on it. Any loss is a victory for enemy. So, landing speed has great importance, besides the fact that it determines service possibilities in bad weather and at night. On the other hand, a pilot that has just ended a combat cannot be asked for high skill performances, needed with high landing speeds. Another point deserving mention, is that practice demonstrated that during a war, type specialization cannot be kept: the fighter drops bombs, takes part in ground combats, makes night interception and reconnaissance flights. Technology would like to solve a specific problem; anyway, it has to design the fighter as a multi-role aircraft and accept many compromises in such a way, that it must be able to carry bombs, or supplementary droppable tanks when it flies in a defensive mission; it must also be able to launch rockets, or be provided with an automatic movie camera, etc. Guided by these thoughts, I built in 1943 the Horten IX model, from which two prototypes were built in the own firm, passing in 1944 to series construction under the license Gotha-Waggon Gotha. It is a flying wing of 16 meters span, equipped with two Junkers 004 turbine engines, built in three parts, the central wing section and two exterior parts. The central part that bears the load is 3.2 meters [10.5 ft -Trans] long and is built in steel tubing; in it the landing gear, turbines, weapons and pilot seat are fixed. The turbines are inside the wing and receive air from the leading edge, without deflections. The cabin is put in the vertex of the sweep angle, between both motors, and is equipped with ejector seat, so as to allow the pilot to descend in parachute, without risk, at high flying speeds; besides the necessary armor, it has radio and identification instruments. Four MK 103 cannons, 30 mm gage, of 900 m/ s of initial speed that produce a noticeable effect on the target and a ballistic corresponding to flight speeds. It has a hanging device for two bombs of 1000 Kilograms each, or for two droppable supplementary tanks, also of 1000 kilograms each. Its range is of 4000 Kilometers with 2400 kilograms of fuel in the wing, but it could be extended considering the very improved fuel consumption of today. The landing gear, with nose wheel, had been designed for the aggravated conditions of night flying and was retractable to the wing center section. In spite of the low landing speed, of 140 kilometers per hour [87 mph -Trans], a detachable drag parachute had been installed, which allowed very short landing runs. In the center section also is installed a aerodynamic brake that permits a rapid adjust of the own speed to the enemy's own one, and that can be also used for landing. The cover shells are wood "monocoque" parts, easy to dismount for maintenance of the engines [and of ] the weapons. The second model was a two place one for night flights and training. The outer wing parts, completely built in wood, are of single spar construction. The leading edge is built in shaped wood, this is, milled wood, mixed with adhesive and then pressed to the definitive shape. By means of this construction method, a high quality product of any shape and size, can be made. The spar that transmits the forces from the wing fitting to the "monocoque", houses in its interior the command push rods. All wing space must be filled with fuel, using very simple rubber bags, attached to the monocoque. The rudders, mounted as brakes at the wing tips, produce a safe effect at any speed, and -by means of some manipulations- can also serve as elevators, so as to assure, even in supersonic flight (it can happen in a down pitch) total dominion of the plane. After five years have passed since the last construction in Germany, I can demonstrate that the Horten IX has not been surpassed by more recent constructions. Speed records are, today as yesterday, over 960 Kilometers an hour [596 mph -Trans], its maximum speed, but the general design combination has not been excelled. The fact is that the construction principles should have been guided only by the physical phenomena arising from experiments with other built airplanes, without copying them. The contrast to this is the conventionally built airplane, resulting from the average of several ones, to be built

@8:45 "Pterodactyl" in a British report. I wonder if it is a reference to the Westland-Hill Pterodactyl of the 1920s and following: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland-Hill_Pterodactyl As always, a wonderful presentation! Thank you!

How stealth can an aircraft be when its turbine blades can be seen from the frontal aspect? The subject of my Profile Picture had some very limited applications of radar absorbing materials, but I would hardly call TSR2 a stealth aircraft.

@Desrtfox71

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah, it can't be stealth, pretty much at all from the front aspect with those exposed turbines.

@forcea1454

4 жыл бұрын

@@Desrtfox71 As far as I'm aware the only commonality the Ho-229 has with the B-2 Spirit is that both are flying wings and are powered by gas turbines.

@Desrtfox71

4 жыл бұрын

@@forcea1454 Well, they do have pilots too :) But yes, The Ho-229 is not stealthy, or wouldn't have been stealthy in use.

@xt6wagon

4 жыл бұрын

Its hard to say, as the "stealth" mosquito was harder to intercept because it was both fast and was harder to detect than traditional bombers. So with a few miles less detection range and a fast approach it would be far harder to intercept than one that didn't have those extra miles. Uncertainty in what the radar operators were seeing would certainly be a large factor in the first raids. In the end, it wouldn't matter for traditional bombing raids as even the small fast V-1 was reliably intercepted. Might make a difference for naval strikes where a guided bomb could make one or two aircraft in a strike an effective force. There you are outside the primary defenses of the isles, moving fast, and striking at a uncertain target. Still thats a ton of resources into effectively an annoyance game by 1945. 1945 the entire British homefleet could go on vacation to Antarctica and Germany is still not making it to the end of the year.

@forcea1454

4 жыл бұрын

@@xt6wagon Given that it took the development of the Blackburn Buccaneer and A-6 Intruder to create all-weather naval strike aircraft, I doubt any development of the Ho-229 would that effective. It wouldn't have space for the necessary aerodynamics, and any effective guided weapon would take considerable time to be developed. The HS-293 and Fritz-X are probably too heavy, large and draggy to be carried by the Ho-229, and by the time it had enter service Brian already had countermeasures in service in the form of the Type 650 & 651 missile guidance jammers.

35:22 “If you want to sell a story...questions get in the way”. An excellent lesson!

I'm amazed you're so passionate about history that you make these videos. They are all well written and well presented!

You did a great job on the airplane analysis, but you really should have focused on WWII radar abilities. Given the early radar set(s) limitations, ignoring WWII radar abilities gives only a partial picture of the planes abilities or lack thereof.

How appropriate that the "Hitler's Stealth Fighter" mockumentary was produced by a company that called itself "Myth Merchant."

I love your videos because it shows how much work you have put into it. You seem to know the material well, even related information, such as the knowledge of how to get the information. Well done!

Many words to answer a question only imagined by some writers. But than again, isn't it what these videos are all about? :-) The Ho 229 was projected as an all wing fighter with superior speed and maneuverability - period. At the same time Germany introduced the first radar absorbing materials to hide U-boat snorkels from allied surface radar named "Sumpf" (swamp) and "Schornsteinfeger" (Chimney sweeper). If someone high ranked realized that the all wing design was already of small RCS it is totally expectable that they connected the two developments. But only as an "add on". One last remark. The RCS-Model from Northrop has a massiv error in that it has a leading edge made intransparent to radar. The Horton has a transparent or semi transparent leading edge and triangular shaped fuel tanks behind that! That already is a good setup to dissipate radar! The other point is: the wings at the Smithsonian institute were captured not fully finished! This was done in the US. So these wings might not be representative for a real Ho 229. Really last thing: Horton never said it was a stealth fighter. He said that they tried to reduce the RCS. Maybe he wanted to keep that in secret for coming out later with a big hit but that never happened......

The only stealth in Reimar Horten's career was quite literally His career after the war.

I always thought it should have had a V-tail. That would have kept the stabiliser/fin arrangement clear of the engine exhausts. The War Thunder simulations are unconvincing IMO - the Ho 229 appears to fly on rails. I would expect it to be a poor gun platform and even firing the guns would make things worse. Many thanks for the video!

@FlashlightEvolution

4 жыл бұрын

I`m not 100% sure but i think i read somewhere that its modeled in wt as if it would be a "normal" plane with a stabiliser. Just a very poor one. They didn!t bother back then to model an only wing flight model for just 1 plane.

That was really interesting and well put together. I think it's your best video to date, Chris!

In fact, the Horten Brothers experimented different composite materials. For instance, they received a batch of composite materials from Dynamite AG and used it to build the Horten V. Unfortunately (from the scientific point of view) a high ranked Luftwaffe officer requested to be the test flight pilot and in the first flight he messed up things (couldn´t get enough altitude and then hit the landing wheel against the roof of an airport building worsening the situation, then hitting trees and as a result crashing the plane). Due to the brittle nature of that composite, aircraft was completely destroyed and was abandoned. They rebuild the Ho V using tubular structure and plywood. They also tested different wing profiles like the Horten Ho VI Parabel (which was finished in the winter, couldn´t be tested and by spring they noticed that plywood surface deteriorated to the point that it was impossible to test.

So when are we getting a vid on Northrop's flying wings lol?

Ive been on the edge, but your content has been so good lately that I had to become a Patron after watching this one. Keep up the great work!

@MilitaryAviationHistory

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks David, happy to hear you are enjoying the videos

Very interesting video. The Horten 229 is one of my favourite Luft 46 projects, I've built the Revell 72nd model twice, and I plan to keep on building it as soon as I find another one.

@jackylin6811

2 жыл бұрын

There is one made by a company called Zoukei Mura. It’s very very detailed out of the box

In my opinion a true 1940s stealth aircraft: 1. maintains a small visual profile and is hard to visually detect, especially at a distance or with spotlights due to employing multiple forms of visual camouflage. 2. has decidedly subsonic prop bladetips and a quiet engine. 3. takes measures to avoid the development of smoke or cloud trails. 4. Can fly low to mitigate all forms of detection. 5. Can exploit clouds efficiently to avoid detection. 6. Employs stealthy weapons systems so that targets will not necessarily be aware that they are being engaged. For example, high accuracy autocannons with few or no tracer rounds over .50 cals and bombs over rockets or strafing to strike a decisive blow before the stealth aircraft can be detected and engaged. 7. minimizes use of metal to avoid radar returns. Care must ve taken not to reflect radar with internal metal structures

I saw the documentary at the time and its conclusion was that while not stealthy, the combination of lower RCS with increased speed would have reduced the response time available to the Allies by several minutes. While Horten certainly didn't do it on purpose, would you agree or disagree that he created a somewhat 'stealthy' aircraft by accident, like the Avro Vulcan?

Such a beautiful aircraft, could fit in today with just slight alterations to it's look.

The thing you have to consider in stealth Military Aviation History both for the B-2 Spirit Bomber, and the F-117 Nighthawk. Was the fact of ceramic materials, precious materials, and even a specific radar absorbing paint was used to help cut down the RCS signature to that of a bird. This radar absorbing paint was used on the U2 spyplane, and later the SR-71 Blackbird. Both were designed by Kelly Johnson of Lockeed Martin Skunkworks. These principles would go on to also be applied to the B2 by Northrop Gumman, and later the F-117 Nighthawk through the Have Blue project. As far as the stealth claim? I am not sure about the shape profile, but if I remember about RCS I do think that heat can somewhat play into detection including infrared signature or thermal signature. If heat was a concern, well the key to claim in the stealth of the Horten 229 theoretically might be mounting the engines internally to help hide it's heat signature. But then again not sure if heat plays into RCS. But I do know the placement of the engines does greatly help with it's aerodynamics.

If I remeber correctly, even the Northrop engineers came to the conclusion, that RCS was about 15% less than a plane of comparable size and that only the somewhat lower RCS in combinaion with speed would have given it a real advantage.

@Desrtfox71

4 жыл бұрын

Except in the frontal direction, you have those exposed turbines. You aren't going to sneak up on anyone with those out front.

Bismark: Should I tidy up my library? Also Bismark: No, I have a video coming up, I can do it then.

@fulcrum2951

3 жыл бұрын

So he isnt fully german

Stealth was what I used as a kid to sneak down stairs at night to raid the fridge..

Its awesome that you are sponsored by War Thunder because thats why I watched this video and many of yours to help me learn about the planes in the game, Danke, Herr!

Great video! Lots if great info. Thanku for the all of the work you did! 👍🏼

That prewritten script from gaijin which Chris had to read at the end of the video was honestly so cringy. _"Nothing is as satisfying as blowing up that tank which is pinning down your allies"_ Yikes. Yeah because "pinning down" exists in a game where HEAT-FS, broken BRs, bad penetration calculators, horrible maps, light tank bias and so much more bulls*** exists. Firefights dont last more then 2 seconds above 4.0. Its just a horrible horrible experience. Well at least it shows how disconnected gaijin is from their player base.

@krisanludwiczak6377

3 жыл бұрын

Well, if someone shoots at you and you need to get behind a rock, but can't drive away because you're being shot at you are pinned down, aren't you m8?

Yet another fantastic video of mythbusting. Yet another reminder of why I am such a proud patreon of this channel. Good work Bis.

@MilitaryAviationHistory

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you :)

Just why I love your videos, TOP QUALITY, educational and informative! 👍🏻👌🏻👏🏻🏆🥇

17:30 first time I have heard anyone talk about this, thank you so much I have always wondered about the oversize nose gear, but figured it was for flying off of improvised runways in late ww2

“free to play”

@juanordonezgalban2278

3 жыл бұрын

free to sufer (and pay to win)

Thank you for all the educational videos, I appreciate the time you put into them :)

I think it was Northrop engineers that made a facsimile of it and found the cockpit was the part that produced the most radar signature. Its all in a documentary that was made about their experiments at the time.

@darylvanderford4307

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you! how come no one is commenting about a actual MODERN radar return test done by Northrop?

@drstrangelove4998

Жыл бұрын

Did Northrop test the radar reflection of their own products?

It seems the Hortons weren't really supported in their endevour by the luftwaffe, so how the hell did they get their hands on a jet engine, let alone two of them?

@watcherzero5256

3 жыл бұрын

Their submission to the 3x1000 bomber competition (1000kg bombs, 1000km range, 1000km an hour speed) was the only one that met the range requirement so would have had a lot of support from Goering to push it through development. It was also included in the Emergency Fighter Programme in 1945 with the Luftwaffe moving their workshop to stay ahead of the advancing allied armies.

Phew, that was a lot of research going into this episode. Nice work.

What i don't get is, an only wing aircraft would (if i understand it right) have way less drag, which means better fuel efficiency, better speed, longer range. But none of that is talked about. The other thing is the part with the dielectric constant: (a material with a high electric constant is preferable for the "isolating" material between the plates of a cpacitor. Capacitors are seen as shorts for high frequencies) The sentence that it increased the dielectric constant of the edge sounds to me that this means the edge would be like a short, and the waves go through to whatever is behind it like it wasn't there. So, yes not absorbend, but transparent to the waves. Which means you need to know the frequency and polarity of the enemy radar to know if there is any chance of detection or avoiding detection. The early british coastal radars could not detect it if the detectable parts were smaller than 10 meters. Later in the war everybody went up with the frequency which means smaller detectable things.

The F22 is low observable but has a tail plane. The only rational reason (beyond obsession with flying wings which are cool!) for omitting a tail plane or canard is to reduce drag. The trade off here is stability, controllability, and agility: building a combat plane without fly by wire would be an act of madness.

Hello, and thank you for your video. You give a lot of good information. I actually was the lead on the Northrop Grumman National Geographic documentary Hitler, Stealth fighter. I got to actually go in and Examine the aircraft at the Garber facility. I have been working in stealth technology for 43 years now. Just being in the presence of this amazing aircraft for the first time I got the feeling that this was a stealth aircraft. There are many other things not listed in the documentary that we were not able to share with the general public. Regarding some points you brought up, in your video, it made me think of how things are invented and the first in the line of aircraft that do amazing things. This was the first stealth aircraft Weather they knew it or not at the time. To compare things it’s like saying the right brothers flyer Was not an airplane. This can’t be compared to the latest and greatest B2 bomber or F-22 raptor. This was a first and should be regarded as that. Thanks again for your informative information. I will look for your next video. 1:00 1:00

The concept of flying wing became popular in the 1930ies/40ies because engineers were concerned about drag. The idea is that eliminating things that were not "absolutely necessary" (like body, tail, etc), they could significantly reduce drag and thus enhance speed and operational radius (less fuel consumption). But flying wing brought a full bag of new problems. They had lateral stability problems and could not resort in any kind of computationally assisted correction like the B2, the F-117A or even the modern 5th generation fighters. This was the concern that shortened the live of Northrop flying wing bombers. Reports from Luftwaffe tests were all convergent about the non fitness of the Horten flying wings for interception tasks because it was really hard to keep enemies locked in the aiming systems. Also there were vibration problems: due to geometry and structure, the fastest Horten gliders and aircraft developed flutter and it was difficult to recover once vibration set up.

I think this is one of best presentations you have produced.

Excellent video as always. On the subject of the different construction techniques of the time, just a small bit of trivia on the Mosquito: not only was it not all wood (for example the engine nacelles are all metal and comprise quite a large proportion of the aircraft) but the wooden areas were also covered with metal. It was quite common in the 1940s to coat aluminium aircraft parts in an aluminised lacquer (paint) to prevent corrosion even if they were to be camouflaged. Because the lacquer helped with weatherproofing, it was also used on the wooden parts of the Mosquito's skin. In fact that wood construction is quite complex: the plywood is coated in canvas, which is shrunk tight with a red dope, before being overpainted with the aluminised lacquer and then camouflaged. Each layer serves a purpose, and while the skills needed for the wooden construction were widely available, this certainly was not crude. While the aluminised coating might have increased the radar return compared to just plywood, I doubt this was to a degree significant for the purposes of comparison here.

@peterstickney7608

4 жыл бұрын

The Aluminized Dope is also used on fabric covered surfaces, to reduce deterioration due to solar heating and UV light.

The Horton was designed as an interceptor, a bomber killer. Therefore it was never intended to operate in 'enemy radar hostile airspace'. Therefore any stealth (reduced radar detection) would in fact be a hindrance when operating over friendly territory where 'interceptor/fighter ground radar control' was in operation. Making it difficult for its own fighter controllers to detect. Any reduced radar visibility is due to the fact that the Horton doesn't have a vertical stabiliser. A vertical stabiliser is a vertical flat reflector at a right angles to a near horizontal ground radar beam. In other words a perfectly positioned large mirror. Modern military aircraft often have two stabilisers each angled outward. Therefore less vertical and therefore a less efficient radar reflector. The Avro Vulcan V bomber was another inadvertent, somewhat stealth design. Sometimes disappearing from radar at certain aircraft/ ground radar relative angles. It was let down by it's large vertical stabiliser.

@martyhorten3743

3 жыл бұрын

Just FYI the spelling is Horten, German, not English.

@jonellison9832

3 жыл бұрын

@@martyhorten3743 Thamk you...

The best shape for stealth capabilities, was the 'Diamond." The diamond facets could scatter radar energy away from the reception antenna. However, the diamond shape is a poor choice for airfoils, empenages, proppelars, or fuselage. But the best shape for a flying aircraft was the 'tear drop shape.' The smooth rounded shape of the teardrop, was better aerodynamically sound. The rounded shape of most aircraft would return the radar energy back to the reception antenna. So, the answer was to combine and blend the two shapes, to get the best of both worlds. Added to the shape of the aircraft, was coatings, that either scatter or absorb radar energy. The F117, was an attempt to produce an aircraft with all these features blended together.

Just remember all those airplanes, ships and tanks you saw in the war thunder promo will take you 100's upon 100's of hours to reach...keep that in mind if you wanna play!

@utzius8003

2 жыл бұрын

I have 500 hours and my highest tier is 6.3.

@Lead1121

2 жыл бұрын

@@utzius8003 I have over 4,000 hours in the game, that’s a lot of time and I don’t have every jet for US and I don’t have higher than tier 5 tanks in US

In my Dads aviation magazines from the 1950s and 60s this and similar aircraft were referred to as flying wings. I remember being fascinated by them as a child.

Loved this video and topic ! Always thought the HO 229 as something very special ! Thanks so much 👍👍

As part of a rebuilt of a Horten body in an American TV show, they tried to point at it with the times radars, and found out it didn't reflect much signal, of course, with hardly any flat surfaces, and being built from mostly wood.

Some years ago I saw in Ntv or such kind of news tv in germany a documentary made in the us, about a us company ( airplane industry?) that build it from wood and similar materials that were used by Horton. Without engines they put it on a high post and checked the radar signature. It was much lower from the front, only problem beeing the intakes of the jet engines. So they concluded that such a plane could have sneaked undetected better to a radar station, that it could have a surpprise effect

Sir, you are second to none in your presentations. I salute you for your efforts to inform your viewers properly.

Really good video man. Cheers from Argentina 🇦🇷. it's amazing that Reimar came here, as many Germans after WW2 did.