Lesser known military aircraft that appeal

My three choices probably would not be rated 'relativly' unknown 40
years ago but now?

So how about Bristol Scout, Fairey Flycatcher and the flying barn door
(Armstrong Whitworth Whitley)

Guy

Convair F-106 Delta Dart
Westland Whirlwind
Grumman F7F Tigercat

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides

paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

Heinkel He-219
Reggiane Re-2000
PZL P,11

Guy,

Please do not take offense at this, but I have a whole site with
hundreds of such a/c and even more posted in the RAM archive. I could
make a huge list, but since you politely asked for favorite unknowns,
can you clarify the status of the a/c? Can they be prototypes or
proposals or just straight built a/c that were produced in some
numbers?

What qualifies?

Here are some examples, you tell me what qualifies:

- Lawrence Captive Airship
- Klein Ringwing
- Schmid SC-28 Wolke ornithopter
- Saab A.36 nuke bomber
- Fokker-Republic D.24 Alliance
- Saro Sr.177
- XF-108 Rapier
- Short Sperrin
- PKZ-2 tethered WW1 helicopter
- Siemens-Schuckert D.IV
- S.O. 4050 Vautour

This is just off the top of my head and includes a mixed bunch of
proposals, mock-ups, and some built.

Rob

No offense taken Rob, basically, anything that actually flew. I was
looking for something like a top 3.

Cheers

Guy

Hmmm I must be getting older than I thought!
I thought the F-106 was not that obscure, but if it is I like it too!
Whirlwind (I assume you mean the fighter not the chopper) yes
definitely
Tigercat - I have seen it it fly and, bluntly, it leaves me a bit
cold.

Guy

I will defintely give you points for the PZL-P11:-)
I have seen one at Krakow and it looks much prettier in the flesh!

Guy

Relatively unknown will vary from aviation fan to the next depending
on their a/c knowledge database. I know thousands of a/c so it is very
difficult to list 3 top favorites. What is unknown by someone is
easily identified by someone else.

For example, all 3 of yours are known to me and by many people!

They are not relatively unknown- especially on this NG.

If you would have listed the Bloodhound, Banes Bat, and Miles Hoop-La
you "might" have gotten into that "relatively unknown" category ;)

Rob

p.s. Spiteful or Sea Fang as well :)

What about the PZL P-23? Or Italian... like anything made by SAI-
Ambrosini or Savoia-Marchetti?

Get my point?

Rob

>Tigercat - I have seen it it fly and, bluntly, it leaves me a bit
>cold.

I like it because "Aces of the Pacific" let you fly one and it was
seriously tooled up, plus it had two radial engines; so it was
outstanding for beating up Japanese airbases and convoys :)

Heinkel He 219 Uhu (Eagle-Owl) , a very capable night fighter that
the Luftwaffe fortunately failed to give the priority necessary to
produce it early enough or in sufficient numbers.

Bristol Beaufort, overshadowed by the Beaufighter it played a major
part in destroying the axis shipping in the MTO

Mitsubishi Ki-46 Dinah, a very successful recon/light bomber aircraft
its top speed of 375 mph and ceiling of 35,000 ft made interception a
very difficult problem.

Keith

I'd pick the Bristol M1 ahead of the Scout, purely as a personal thing.
I'd be with you on the Flycatcher - said to be the most delightful pilot's
aeroplane of all, by those who flew it. The Fairey Fox has to be in there
too.

The Whitley: Hmm. Whole lot of ugly in one place, but it did its job.

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

Yes, I will give you all three :-)

Guy

Bristol M1 yes serious but dangerous fun, The fox, yes damn good, but
mainly 'cos of its engine.

Guy

You can't be serious... all 3 are known WW2 aircraft in any standard
WW2 reference book.

And the He-219??? Mosquito killer- very well known and heavily armed
(6-8x 20mm cannon)!!!

Are you crazy???

Rob

Defintely:)

Guy

My personal picks:

- Grumman F11F Tiger. Never seen one fly and I don't hope to, but it
sure looks beautiful sitting on the ground. Plus, I've always been
fascinated by the rapid design evolution of the late 40s through early
60s, with a bunch of flash in the pan design as we tried to figure out
what worked.

- Aichi M6A Seiran. Never actually used, gigantic waste of resources,
but go see it at the NASM's Dulles annex sometime. It's so pretty it
hurts.

- Boeing P-26 Peashooter. Never get tired of telling the tale of the
Philippine Air Force pilot who actually shot down a Zero in this
thing. Always wanted to get out to Chino so I can say I've seen all
the examples still extant. (That would be a grand total of two, but
sounds so much less impressive that way...)

Honorable mentions: Lockheed C-121 Constellation, Grumman F7F
Tigercat, and Convair B-58 Hustler.

-JTD

If you promise not to laff, here's mine...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bulla_Vityaz.jpg

That SOB Sikorsky sticks a balconey on the front of
a 4 engine machine in 1913, and at 55mph your hair
is hardly messed.
As a brat I had to read that 6 times to sink in.

He went on to invent the helicopter, good that we
were lucky enough that he went to the US. A brain
like his could have bent the cold-war, maybe did.
Ken

CF-105 Avro Arrow #1 Best Fighter EVER would still out do an F-15

TSR-2 #2 Fantastic Might have done a better job then the F-111

F-107 #3 Justa Dam Cool Design

Peek at my books

http://www.blurb.com/books/537474

No actually the world's first practical helicopter was the Fw-61 which
Hanna Reitsch flew. You can argue all you want but it is in all the
record books as such. And the Germans did get the Fa-330 gyrocopter,
Fl-282 and Fa-223 helos operational during the war (the former for the
Kreigsmarine as spotter asnd the latter as mountain troop carrier and
load-lifter). There was also that nifty WNF-342 jet helo too as well
as Baumgartel's backpack helo and NR portable helo hanging in a US
museum right now. Of course the German rotor projekts will get no
credit either even though there was a heavy lift crane helo design,
large passenger helo design, tilt-rotot a/c long before the V-22, and
armed assault helo designs (Fl-285 and some experimental versions of
enclosed Fl-282 came close to this realization).

Sikorsky is overrated just like Cierva. Focke and Flettner did the
pioneer work and got operational craft into the war. They could not
get the US production numbers and they were bombed too. That's the
real reason the US could catch up quickly, but still went through the
German documents to test out their own jet helos and heavy-lift types,
intermeshing rotors and such. Tilt-rotor came rather late tho'... and
then postwar MBB had the rigid-rotor system that made looping the MBB
Bo-109 easy.

Rob

It was an interceptor.

Best tactical bomber of the time.

Why, b/c the intake is on top?

Rob

p.s. You forgot the Valkyrie, which certainly would be third on that
list instead of the XF-107. You were on a roll with best interceptor,
tactical bomber... and then it should have been strategic bomber.

And I am right in the middle of building one and yes I agree that would
push the F-107 to fourth.

As for 'known' aircraft, Spitfire Mk9, Fw 190, Me 109F, XP38K, Zero
A6M3, MiG17 - and the Shuttle . . .
Walt BJ

I have a book (The German Giants) with a picture of Sikorski's Ilya
Mourometz (developed from Vityaz) in flight. Two Russian cavalry
officers (as captioned) are standing atop the fuselage aft of the
wings, overcoats trailing in the gentle breeze. I have also read a
library book by Sikorski relating a long series of cross-country trips
flown in a Vityaz,. Lots of unplanned landings for maintenance, etc,
mostly (ISTR) concerning water leaks, overheating, broken exhaust
valves and pipes. At least the four-engined bird was slow and light-
footed enougn to land in smooth pastures. A search of under 'Sikorski'
plus 'Biography' ought to turn up the book.
Walt BJ

Kaman HH-43 "Husky"
Martin WB-57
Northrop XP-56 (as long as nobody has to try to fly it)

Forgot the F4D Skyray. If you blinked you missed it in service, but
very pretty and I got to sit in one as a kid at the New England Air
Museum.

So probably Skyray, Seiran, and Peashooter, on reflection.

-JTD

hmmm I must be getting old - I would not have rated the Tripehound or
Bearcat as relatively unknown;-)

Guy

You really do take aviation history seriously!
I'm overwhelmed by Sikorsky (Russians tend to put
a "y" on the end and Polish an "i"), it's the multi-engined
machine, as you mention,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_Ilya_Muromets
worked very well given the limitations of that time and
place (Russia 1913), such as light-weight metallurgy.

As I understand the evolution of mechanical engineering,
and the related physics, it was primarily railroad locomotive
design that compelled the standards, where weight was not
an issue.
In aviation, weight was an issue, and an infantile science
in 1913 that Sikorski safely compromised, with his multi-
engined machines.
But the breadth of his genious extended to perfecting a
mass producible helicopter, for all that, I think he's
unsurpassed as an aviation genious, mind boggling.
Thanks and Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Jeesh Rob, I figured you'd throw Leonado da Vinci
at me, technically it's a matter of patent evolution.
I think it's safe to say Sikorsky and team brought
the helicopter to mass appeal safely, being effective
and economical.
Ken

Anyway, here are three in no particular order:

Westland Welkin
Fairey Fantôme
Bell XP-77
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Oh my.

> Guy,
>
> Please do not take offense at this, but I have a whole site with blah-blah-blah-blah

Translation:

Guy,

Please excuse me while I hijack your thread in a shameless attempt to
convert it into another episode of "Let's All Worship Rob Arndt" and I
insert another shameless plug for my Star Wars Fan Fiction web site,
featuring thousands of pilfered photos of oddball airplanes and Nazi
Vaporware (tm)!

[cue patented Arndt rant]

To each his own. I took the IP to mean aircraft that weren't as
well known (lesser) than the main ones but were still active. That
would be those who served but maybe only a couple hundred rather than
thousands...or were replaced quickly, etc, etc. We can nitpick all day
or just have an enjoyable thread where we each give our opinions.

- Kaman's *other* unknown, but hugely successful helicopter (near 40
years in front line service) is the SH-2 "Seasprite".
- "Big Wing" recon B-57
- FW 58 ("A delight to fly") - one is returning to the sky down in Sud
America in the near term

Rumpler Taube - just the kite for a peaceful evening jaunt around the
neighborhood.

Northrup N9M - nicely scaled Nurflügel without all the goose-stepping.

Lockheed NF-104 - Nothing ever said "kick in the ass" quite like it.

Honorable mentions:
Westland Whirlwind - serious firepower in a small slinky package
Blohm und Voss BV 138 "Fliegende Holzschuh" - the Flying Clog
Blohm und Voss BV 141 Technically excellent but too wacky for the
conformist RLM. What was it with Vogt and assymetry?
HP Victor - Still looks like something out of Dan Dare.
Saab Draken - lovely, unique shape
Fiesler Storch and Westland Lysander - STOL performers par excellence
Bristol 188 research aircraft - looks really serious, but would be
"about to declare a fuel emergency on the climb-out"
Hawker P1121 - that chin intake is familiar.

Preceded as far back as 1901 with the GW No.24 :)
>
> Northrup N9M - nicely scaled Nurfl�gel without all the goose-stepping.

First, learn to spell Northrop, idiot. Second, all of Northrop's
experience with flying wings have little to do with the B-2 except
name. It is clearly more related to the Horten wings (despite the 35
and 49 bombers). The fact that the stored Ho-IX was thoroughly
reviewed by Northrop prior to building the B-2 is indicative of Horten
design technology.

Except, of course, the X-15 ;)

Seems that YOU need a "kick in the ass".

Rob

So what? The OP - as in NOT YOU - asked for specific submissions of
the poster's choice, not opportunities for the resident RAM pustule to
feed his vendettas.

Innocent enough mistake.

Ever learned to spell "project" yet without trying to make some faux-
Eurotrash statement out of it?

Thought so.

Like I said: without all the goose-stepping. ;)

Except that the OP asked for "lesser known" examples.

That may be, but it ain't gonna be you that provides it. ;)

I figured it was too famous to list... :}

Other than internal payload, was there much difference between the
WB-57(F?) and the RB-57D/F?.

Got a chance to get up close and personal with the Planes of Fame N9M
restoration while wandering around the hangars back in the early 90s.
Absolutely beautiful job they did on the that bird.

Except for those (damnable) Menasco engines, everything about the N9
just shouted, "That looks right."

Looked to fly that way as well.

Oh, those are good ones. When I was a kid the local National Guard had
F-106s. They looked fast on the tarmac and even faster when they
zipped over. For a while I believe it was the fastest single engine
production fighter anywhere. The first sonic boom I ever heard came
from one of those babies.

The Grumman F7F is a nice twin fighter. Just neat looking.

The Westland Whirlwind? I WIKI'd that one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Whirlwind_(fighter)

Nice. I wonder if they ever considered them for bomber escort? That's
a neat looking plane, and looks fast too. Looks like a lot of engine,
very neat.

> --
> The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
> warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
> by fools.
>                                                             -Thucydides
>
> paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_Whirlwind_(fighter)

It was a bit short on range for an escort having a combat radius of around
300 miles
and the Peregrine engines were rather the problem. It was the only
production
aircraft to use them and there were some relaibility problems

Keith

Walt! I never knew you were friends with the General - he is
wonderful. If this thread were about unsung pilots of great
achievement instead of designs, I'd toss Bob Cardenas in as my vote.
He has done it all in a literal sense of the word. Ask him about his
first flight in a MiG 15... Or what it was like to tumble a B-35. I
stood a few feet away while he held that astronaut group with their
jaws hanging - the deep respect and deference those visitors showed to
him was one of the most enduring moments of honor I have had the
priviledge to see. His exploits are legendary. Any chance you could
share a story or two of your time together with him?

He is the third man (on the left, behind Neil Armstrong) in the photo
with me on the Union Tribune - it was great to see him again. I was
surrounded by truly special people - it's very satisfying to know you
got to fly with such airmen. A couple people here really stand out as
far as their careers and character. I'm glad that we can benefit from
the experiences that so many people step forward to share with us.

well... to hear THEM tell it... <ducking inbound

True, plus there were certainly flying wings and paper projects that
were just as advanced as the Horten, even far larger craft. The B-2
shares overall dimensions with the earlier USAF wings, which differ
from the Horten significantly. The B-2 IS a quantum update from a WW2
design, but its from the B-35, not some obscure and flawed German
wartime prototype.

v/r Gordon

> >�Note that the wing planform of the B2 superficially resembles

Ho-IX/Go-229 WAS the world's first dedicated stealth a/c with RAM and
anti-radar paint. Flying wings at that time were also stealthy by pure
confiugration to the radars of that time period as radar would pass
over the wing shape.

Gordon is full of shit. The Horten wings were far more advanced than
anything the US had in May 1945 including the Ho-IX, Ho-XIII, and Ho
Parabola. The B-2 has been said to be a careful combination of Ho-V,
Ho-VII, and Ho-IX and the FACT that Northrop examined the stored Ho-IX
at Silver Hill completely before building the B-2 is a good indicator
that their history with their flying wings was NOT the direction they
sought. The B-2 is more like the Horten designs than any of the
Northrop wings including the failed B-35 and 49.

Some photos:
http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Horten_Nurflugels/ho_v/ho_v_c_on_ground.jpg
http://www.twitt.org/ho_v_and_ho_ii.jpg
http://www.twitt.org/ho_vii_v_1_in_flight.jpg
http://jpcolliat.free.fr/ho9/images/ho9v1_13.jpg
http://jpcolliat.free.fr/ho9/images/ho9v1_walter_horten_01.jpg

What in US inventory equal these:
http://www.twitt.org/ho_xiii_a_in_flight.jpg
http://www.twitt.org/parabola_2.jpg

Rob

p.s. I am so glad I outed that LW kiss-ass Gordon, Guess no more
lunches with the experten and no talk of your beloved Me Bf 109 and
Me-262. But your RAM archive of pro-Nazi posts makes you a fucking
hypocritical liar and your feeble attempts to discredit German
technology and slamming the LW is a facade. Guess you need to jack-off
to your Mossie now. What a fake, plastic personality you have Gordon.
You BELONG in a museum since you are a relic and I would not be
surprised if you were fired from SDASM.

Wrong again, shape my deflect, but it won't "pass over."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Great pogrom, Rob!

(sheesh)

Naturally, here come the claims that because the Übermensch had a
project in the works, Northrop absolutely, positively stole every idea
he ever had about the flying wing planform from das Reich and the
Horten estate should sue for royalties.

Of particular interest is this bit right here:

Really now? Well, Rob, not to put a Zippo to your mental Hindenburg or
anything, there are some very well researched sources that dispute
your take on history:

[quote]

Although the Ho 229 has been immediately identified as "stealthy" due
to the characteristics of its overall configuration, neither of the
Horten brothers ever claimed their aircraft had been designed with
consideration to the way it deflects radar waves. In fact, the unique
shape of the Ho 229 has evolved from the ten-year long aerodynamic
research by the Hortens. What Reimar did claim as far back as 1950,
was that the wooden construction of the Ho 229 would reflect very
little of the incoming electromagnetic waves, thus making the aircraft
"...barely visible on the radar."

Here it should be noted that despite a widespread belief, the
wooden construction of an aircraft does not necessarily reduce its
radar visibility. Known is the fact that the all-wooden de Havilland
Mosquito was in no way 'invisible.' It is true that wood is a
predominantly radio-transparent material, reflecting and dissipating
only a small fraction of radiation. But, with the skin transparent to
the radar rays, the inner structures such as the engines or the
tubular frame of the Ho 229 would reflect the incoming radiation none
the less.

It appears that the radar-absorbing properties of carbon had not
been known to Reimar before the late 1970s, when materials working on
similar principles were created in the USA. Perhaps this new
information led Reimar to assert his "visionary" manner that the
charcoal present inside the Formholz skin of the Ho 229 "...would
diffuse radar beams, and make the aircraft 'invisible' to radar."
Although the charcoal, being a form of carbon, could in fact dissipate
electromagnetic emissions in a limited range of wavelengths, this
substance had actually been utilised as a porous filler to lighten the
composite formed parts. Another variation of the carbon theme by
Reimar dealt with a mix of coal dust and glue that "...camouflaged 90%
of the radar cross-section of the Ho 229" and had to be applied also
to the H XVIII.

[end quote]

*****

source of excerpt:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=5851.msg49769;topicseen

excerpt from:

http://www.amazon.com/Horten-Ho-229-Spirit-Thuringia/dp/1903223660

*****

Okay, Rob, tap dance your way out of this one.

Or scream, cry and have another hissy fit. It's your choice.

Hi, you don't know me, I'm Jeff Hamilton, how do you do ? I live in the
Niagra region of Ontario. I do so enjoy your posts and I'm now going to
pull-up a front row seat now and watch. This should be fun !

cheers......Jeff

Oh heck, just crank up some old Nazi propaganda films, drink some warm
beer and wait for Bob to go off again. Usually when the dog chews up
his copy of Mein Kampf or the Hitler channel shows that the Germans
lost Again, and again, and again.

Or maybe his friends dropped him on Facebook or his parents opened
their phone bill again. They yell into the basement and threaten to
unplug his computer from the mains.

some of the stuff is such bad photoshopped composites its laughable.
But, hey, some places have worst trolls.

The Ho-IX as well as many of the previous Horten a/c were tested
against radar and were not picked up. If you bothered to read any of
the books on Horten a/c they tell the same story AND the
Schornsteifeger anti-radar paint was ready in 1945 for production a/c.

The U-boats also received Alberich skin anti-sonar for stealth (and
YES the glue problem was fixed) as well as Tarnmatte for the
schnorkels which was proven anti-radar.

Rob

More mind-numbing drivel.

Matter of fact, I own quite a few works on the Horten designs,
including the above-referenced Spirit of Thuringia and "Nurflügel, the
Story of the Horten Flying Wings 1933-1960" , by Dr. Reimar Horten and
Peter Selinger. 1985, Herbert Weishaupt Verlag, Postfach 29, A-8047
Graz, Austra. ISBN 3-900310-09-2

What's your point?

Let's see now:

Ah. Got a cite for any of that, or are we to, as usual, rely on your
impeccable credentials as the final word and ultimate authority on the
issue?

By the way - learn to spell "Schornsteinfeger". (just a little sauce
for the goose)

What, no source? That's okay - we're used to it.

The funny thing here, Rob, is that you didn't think to mention that
Schornsteinfeger was a German Navy project and if there was anybody
the Kriegsmarine had as many bones to pick with as the Royal Navy, it
was the Luftwaffe - that little tiff about Goering swiping all their
planes or some such. They didn't talk much.

Love to see any direct - or indirect for that matter - evidence that
the Hortens were even aware of the existence of "Schornsteinfeger,"
much less used it.

And by the way, "Schornsteinfeger" wasn't paint. It was an impregnated
coating:

[quote]

Evidently the problem of avoiding radar detection came into being the
moment the first operational radar was fielded. Already during the
Battle of Britain radar had greatly enhanced the effectiveness of the
British air defence. As early as April 1942 the RLM's Director of Air
Armament, Erhard Milch, offered a prize for finding a way of deceiving
enemy radar. While airborne electronic warfare was in the event
pioneered by the British 'Window' passive jamming, it was the German
Navy which introduced the means of permanent radar-protection of
moving vehicles. By 1944 the Kriegsmarine had developed and tested
radar-absorbing materials which were applied to the parts of
submarines exposed above the water in order to prevent their detection
by ASV radar, which was a naval version of the H2S airborne radar.
The simplest material was a carbon-impregnated rubber coating, named
'Schornsteinfeger' ('chimney sweeper'), an allusion to the substance
used.

[end quote]

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=5851.msg49769;topicseen

Which means utterly nothing as regards any use or application to any
Horten product.

Y'see, Rob, you can fool all of the people some of the time, some of
the people all of the time, but you can't fool credible research.

By the way, to spare you any more need to pile on the BS about
Schornsteinfeger and its derivatives, here's a link to an HTML view of
a pdf file (since your Adobe is so slow) that's both far more credible
and detailed than any greyfalcon crib sheet you might want to pander
off as "proof":

THE SCHORNSTEINFEGER PROJECT
Reported By
Sq./Ldr. G.G. MACFARLANE

http://tinyurl.com/anrbr2

(www.cdvandt.org/CIOS%20XXVI-24.pdf)

Please do provide us with references for your speculations next
time. ;)

(other stuff snipped)

(more stuff snipped)

If you are embarking on a radical, new design, it is just good
engineering practice to examine other, similarly-configured designs for
their strengths and weaknesses.

Just because Northrop engineers examined the Horton wings at Silver Hill
does not mean that they got much useful information from them.

One would have to consult the designers to verify such allegations.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

By the by, Rob, while we're waiting for an explanation of your claim
that 'Schornsteinfeger' was some kind of super-secret stealth paint,
you might want to crack the books and come up with a dance routine
that explains this howler:

On Dec 11 2003, 11:18 am, teuton...@aol.com (robert arndt) wrote:

>
> Please refrain from including me in groups that I do not belong. My
> previous posts have dealt with German and Allied disc designs ranging
> from before WW2 thru the postwar years. There is an abundance of
> evidence of disc programs from this time period and the amazing part
> about it is that the modern UFO phenomenon started IMMEDIATELY after
> 1945 (if you don't count the Foo fighters, which were German devices).
> It is a FACT that the Hortens were in the US in 1946 and working on
> both flying wing AND disc designs. It is also a FACT that German
> engineers were here working on disc craft and that the US feared a
> Soviet counterweapon of this type. My sources? The Freedom of
> Information Act and documents declassified by the DoD and USAF.
> I only included the occult Vril and Thule/SS disc programs because
> they are part of the bigger picture of German wartime research and
> their chronolgical development of discs HAS to be included in any
> exploration of the German disc material. As stated earlier one CANNOT
> seperate the occult from the Third Reich.

Don't much care about all of the saucer bilge, but I'd be fascinated
to see where you came up with:

> It is a FACT that the Hortens were in the US in 1946 and working on
> both flying wing AND disc designs.

Do tell, when you get a chance, please-please, pretty please?

Interesting bit here:

So the Horten designs were tested for RCS, were they?

Let's see what an "authoritative" source has to say about that:

[quote]

Another factor in Reimar's choice of wood is rather startling: he
believed that he needed to keep the wing's radar cross-section as low
as possible. “We wished,” he said many years later, “to have the [Ho
229] plane … that would not reflect [radar signals]” and Horten
believed he could meet this requirement more easily with wood than
metal. Many questions about this aspect of the Ho 229 design remain
unanswered and no test data is available to document Horten's work in
this area. The fragmentary information that is currently available
comes entirely from anecdotal accounts that have surfaced well after
World War II ended.

[end quote]

"Many questions about this aspect of the Ho 229 design remain
unanswered and no test data is available to document Horten's work in
this area."

Hmmm. Doesn't sound good for backing up your claim that "Horten a/c
were tested
against radar and were not picked up" does it, Rob?

Where, oh where, can information so contrary to your claims be found,
you may ask.

Check it out:

http://greyfalcon.us/restored/A%20few%20items%20here%20don.htm

Which, by the way, was swiped unattributed from:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-requests/horton-brothers-flying-wings-3618.html

Which cites authorship to:

"Here is the story of the whole project. This is from the NASM website
that also had interviews with the Horten brothers about their work, It
is also on tape, their explanation for not restoring the Horten 229 V3
is that they are waiting for their new facility to be completed, this
will all in all take 7 years."

Excuse me while I go hose off my browser.

How about the Junkers F30....don't you love an early monoplane with a
corrugated skin? First time I saw it in a photo....I fell head over heels.

Then there's the Boeing 237...defeated by the DC-3 but such a pretty looking
airplane, how could you not fall in love?

But for sheer utter cool....the Saab Draken is by far the coolest thing
going!

Then again my list changes daily.

There's the CC2, the N9M, the Storch, the SARO Princess...oh my.

So, Rob, have at me!

Yeah, the American's copied it, for the Space-Shuttle,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_35_Draken

Rob is among the highest rated posters, consistently
scoring an A grade, I don't score anyone myself though.
Ken

The Horten is currently #3 on their "to be restored or preserved" list
of captured Jerry aircraft, but unfortunately, that means years in the
future. We were working toward getting their He 162 to restore and
display but it fell through. Latest NEAT thing about the Horten is
that the makers of the B-2 built a full scale replica of the Horten
for a National Geographic program (I believe). There are photos of it
in a hangar (sadly, without "Rauschen Verboten!" signs on the wall)
that is festooned with Nazi banners and populated with guys in period
uniforms. Probably the closest to Luft 46 that has been recreated so
far.

v/r Gordon

Thanks, Gordon.

Yeah, the Nat'l Geographic/Northrop model shop program "Masters of
Stealth," IIRC, has been mentioned in a couple of threads - it'll be
interesting to see what they came up with. Any links to the photos
available?

One item about the Garber 229 it'd be interesting to see cleared up is
the origin of the outer wing panels. It's been mentioned in several
places that there's some question as to whether they'd even fit the
center section. Apparently, that set of panels was found in a
different location quite a ways from the Gotha Works at
Friederichsroda and may have been a set of static test items.

Fascinating topic to be sure...

No, but I may have access to a couple when I get back to work next
week. If you can get a "Pacific Flyer" newspaper, there is a crappy
photo in their current issue, second section.

Our Curator speaking to me on the above subject said he was told by
the NASM that if the wings were ever put on, "it'd be the first
time." I'm with you - I don't have any confidence that they will even
fit.

v/r Gordon

The U.S. VIII Corps of General Patton's Third Army found the Horten
229 prototypes V3 through V6 at Friedrichsroda in April 1945. Horten
had designed airframes V4 and V5 as single-seat night fighters and V6
would have become a two-seat night fighter trainer. V3 was 75 percent
finished and nearest to completion of the four airframes. Army
personnel removed it later and shipped it to the U.S., via the Royal
Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, England. Reports indicate the
British displayed the jet during fall 1945 and eventually the
incomplete center section arrived at Silver Hill (now the Paul E.
Garber Facility in Suitland, Maryland ) about 1950. There is no
evidence that the outer wing sections were recovered at Friedrichsroda
but members of the 9th Air Force Air Disarmament Division found a pair
of wings 121 km (75 miles) from this village and these might be the
same pair now included with the Ho 229 V-3.

Rob

...

On Feb 14, 4:37 am, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> ripped off:

<a bunch of text from

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-requests/horton-brothers-flying-wings-3618-3.html

....which the poster there got from:

www.twitt.org/Farnborough.html

[yawn]

What's the matter, Rob - trying to save a little face for having been
caught serving up the BS about your "Schornsteinfeger paint" howler
for years?

On Jan 25, 1:55 am, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:

> Again, trying to misinterpret what I said on purpose. Germany had
> visual stealth techniques in ww1 with the Taube and cellon-covered
> Fokkers and Linke-Hoffmann R-1. In WW2 they had radar absprbing
> Schornsteinfeger paint as well as the stealth Ho-IX/Go-229 which was
> radar-invisible due to impregnated material and flying wing
> configuration.

Tell us, Rob - which "recent articles" or "projeckt papers" did you
get that from?

Now THAT would be a post of yours worth reading - for a change.