Secret Wings of WWII: Nazi Technology and the Allied Arms Race - by Lance Cole

[steelpillow]

I just got a copy of this dreck of a book. Luckily it was just $15-- well, $14 and change. For that price, I could afford to take a chance.

What a completely one-sided Nazi fanboi, or complete ignoring of Allied records, it is. There is so much stuff wrong in it it'd take writing another book to fully cover all the misinformation, wrong opinions, and other mistakes in this book. Some of the mistakes and stuff are massively egregious.

On flying wings, seemingly a favorite topic of Cole's, he all but ignores Jack Northrop's contributions and never even mentions Chyeranovskii's bureau's contributions in Russia.

https://civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com/the-chyeranovskii-bich-series-parabola-wing-aircraft/

On lots of other stuff he's just plain wrong, like jet engines. His lists on pgs 187 to 190 are rife with massive, undocumented, and likely undocumentable conclusions about the influence of German technology on postwar developments. The opinions he foists there are completely unsupportable.

To every red-blooded American, Jack Northrop was of course the only tailless designer who ever did anything right. However the truth is that he never made any significant contribution to the theory, nor built an aerodynamically production-ready tailless type, never mind flying wing. The Douglas F4D Skyray and Convair deltas, though not flying wings, were altogether more serviceable, while the Avro Vulcan had only a vestigial fuselage and its aerodynamics knocked the spots off Northrop's YB-49.

Almost nothing is known in the West about the Chyeranovskii types or the theory behind them. According to some accounts he eventually received some State recognition in the USSR (I would love to know what for). However, like Northrop, he never saw a tailless design into production and had no influence on the well-documented history of Western aircraft design.

There are dozens more tailless and flying wing designers, of greater or lesser understanding, who had no significant influence on anybody else.

So I do not see those omissions as flaws in Cole's German eulogy. He is no worse than those American writers who peddle the Northrop myth. For what it's worth, I am posting my own researches and understanding as it develops, at

https://www.steelpillow.com/aerospace/tailless.html

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I just got a copy of this dreck of a book. Luckily it was just $15-- well, $14 and change. For that price, I could afford to take a chance.

What a completely one-sided Nazi fanboi, or complete ignoring of Allied records, it is. There is so much stuff wrong in it it'd take writing another book to fully cover all the misinformation, wrong opinions, and other mistakes in this book. Some of the mistakes and stuff are massively egregious.

On flying wings, seemingly a favorite topic of Cole's, he all but ignores Jack Northrop's contributions and never even mentions Chyeranovskii's bureau's contributions in Russia.

https://civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com/the-chyeranovskii-bich-series-parabola-wing-aircraft/

On lots of other stuff he's just plain wrong, like jet engines. His lists on pgs 187 to 190 are rife with massive, undocumented, and likely undocumentable conclusions about the influence of German technology on postwar developments. The opinions he foists there are completely unsupportable.

To every red-blooded American, Jack Northrop was of course the only tailless designer who ever did anything right. However the truth is that he never made any significant contribution to the theory, nor built an aerodynamically production-ready tailless type, never mind flying wing. The Douglas F4D Skyray and Convair deltas, though not flying wings, were altogether more serviceable, while the Avro Vulcan had only a vestigial fuselage and its aerodynamics knocked the spots off Northrop's YB-49.

Almost nothing is known in the West about the Chyeranovskii types or the theory behind them. According to some accounts he eventually received some State recognition in the USSR (I would love to know what for). However, like Northrop, he never saw a tailless design into production and had no influence on the well-documented history of Western aircraft design.

There are dozens more tailless and flying wing designers, of greater or lesser understanding, who had no significant influence on anybody else.

So I do not see those omissions as flaws in Cole's German eulogy. He is no worse than those American writers who peddle the Northrop myth. For what it's worth, I am posting my own researches and understanding as it develops, at

https://www.steelpillow.com/aerospace/tailless.html

Northrop started off with low speed true flying wings like the N9M. What happens is as the speed of this type of aircraft increases, they become more and more laterally unstable. Adding a tail--pre-computer flight controls--becomes necessary. Had the Horten IX / Go 229 gotten more flight testing at high speeds it too would have suffered instability in flight and necessitated modification, most likely with adding a tail

 

[steelpillow]

.

Northrop started off with low speed true flying wings like the N9M. What happens is as the speed of this type of aircraft increases, they become more and more laterally unstable. Adding a tail--pre-computer flight controls--becomes necessary. Had the Horten IX / Go 229 gotten more flight testing at high speeds it too would have suffered instability in flight and necessitated modification, most likely with adding a tail

The decrease in directional instability at high speeds is primarily associated with changes in the aerodynamics at transonic speeds and above (see for example https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA319978.pdf). None of the Northrop wings ever got significantly into that regime, all of them were problematic and needed their fins at much lower speeds.
Other factors which affect it include wing loading and altitude (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19930081898/downloads/19930081898.pdf). High-speed types generally have higher wing loading than lower-speed types, in order to reduce parasitic drag. But this is more about decreasing stability by design rather than the plane in flight. Here, high speeds are generally only attainable at high altitudes, and likewise a plane's maximum altitude can only be reached at maximum flying speed. So as a plane files faster, it must fly higher and it will thus become less stable. and this creates an indirect relationship between speed and stability.
The Ho/Go flying wing had nether forward fuselage nor tail fin, so its stability dynamics would have differed markedly from the norm. Moreover its low-drag design was intended to achieve those high speeds at lower altitudes, reducing the instability effect. Its high-speed characteristics are nevertheless an open question. Reimar Horten never fully fathomed the "Mitteneffekt", the role of the centre section in the 3D flow over the wing. The effect of the bulges around the engines was unknown, especially when they were changed to a larger-diameter type. Gotha made significant changes to the upper profile, including changes, of which Reimar was highly critical, to the all-important cockpit canopy/fairing on the Go 229. Beyond noting that Horten's own design flew in prototype form and proved reasonably flyable, I would hesitate to be dogmatic about any aspect of either version's flight characteristics, at whatever speed or altitude. My guess is that it would at least have suffered the same "undetected yaw" problem noted by Reimar on some of his earlier types, and by the USAF on the YB-49.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

.

Northrop started off with low speed true flying wings like the N9M. What happens is as the speed of this type of aircraft increases, they become more and more laterally unstable. Adding a tail--pre-computer flight controls--becomes necessary. Had the Horten IX / Go 229 gotten more flight testing at high speeds it too would have suffered instability in flight and necessitated modification, most likely with adding a tail

The decrease in directional instability at high speeds is primarily associated with changes in the aerodynamics at transonic speeds and above (see for example https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA319978.pdf). None of the Northrop wings ever got significantly into that regime, all of them were problematic and needed their fins at much lower speeds.
Other factors which affect it include wing loading and altitude (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19930081898/downloads/19930081898.pdf). High-speed types generally have higher wing loading than lower-speed types, in order to reduce parasitic drag. But this is more about decreasing stability by design rather than the plane in flight. Here, high speeds are generally only attainable at high altitudes, and likewise a plane's maximum altitude can only be reached at maximum flying speed. So as a plane files faster, it must fly higher and it will thus become less stable. and this creates an indirect relationship between speed and stability.
The Ho/Go flying wing had nether forward fuselage nor tail fin, so its stability dynamics would have differed markedly from the norm. Moreover its low-drag design was intended to achieve those high speeds at lower altitudes, reducing the instability effect. Its high-speed characteristics are nevertheless an open question. Reimar Horten never fully fathomed the "Mitteneffekt", the role of the centre section in the 3D flow over the wing. The effect of the bulges around the engines was unknown, especially when they were changed to a larger-diameter type. Gotha made significant changes to the upper profile, including changes, of which Reimar was highly critical, to the all-important cockpit canopy/fairing on the Go 229. Beyond noting that Horten's own design flew in prototype form and proved reasonably flyable, I would hesitate to be dogmatic about any aspect of either version's flight characteristics, at whatever speed or altitude. My guess is that it would at least have suffered the same "undetected yaw" problem noted by Reimar on some of his earlier types, and by the USAF on the YB-49.

And, that's what I'm getting at. The easiest fix in the late 40's was add a vertical tail or two. That's what the NACA recommended to Northrop on several of his flying wing prototypes. I think that it's very likely that the Horten brothers couldn't fix stability problems in their designs at higher speeds any more than Northrop, or anybody else, could have. The technology at the time just wasn't up to it.

 

[steelpillow]

.

Northrop started off with low speed true flying wings like the N9M. What happens is as the speed of this type of aircraft increases, they become more and more laterally unstable. Adding a tail--pre-computer flight controls--becomes necessary. Had the Horten IX / Go 229 gotten more flight testing at high speeds it too would have suffered instability in flight and necessitated modification, most likely with adding a tail

The decrease in directional instability at high speeds is primarily associated with changes in the aerodynamics at transonic speeds and above (see for example https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA319978.pdf). None of the Northrop wings ever got significantly into that regime, all of them were problematic and needed their fins at much lower speeds.
Other factors which affect it include wing loading and altitude (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19930081898/downloads/19930081898.pdf). High-speed types generally have higher wing loading than lower-speed types, in order to reduce parasitic drag. But this is more about decreasing stability by design rather than the plane in flight. Here, high speeds are generally only attainable at high altitudes, and likewise a plane's maximum altitude can only be reached at maximum flying speed. So as a plane files faster, it must fly higher and it will thus become less stable. and this creates an indirect relationship between speed and stability.
The Ho/Go flying wing had nether forward fuselage nor tail fin, so its stability dynamics would have differed markedly from the norm. Moreover its low-drag design was intended to achieve those high speeds at lower altitudes, reducing the instability effect. Its high-speed characteristics are nevertheless an open question. Reimar Horten never fully fathomed the "Mitteneffekt", the role of the centre section in the 3D flow over the wing. The effect of the bulges around the engines was unknown, especially when they were changed to a larger-diameter type. Gotha made significant changes to the upper profile, including changes, of which Reimar was highly critical, to the all-important cockpit canopy/fairing on the Go 229. Beyond noting that Horten's own design flew in prototype form and proved reasonably flyable, I would hesitate to be dogmatic about any aspect of either version's flight characteristics, at whatever speed or altitude. My guess is that it would at least have suffered the same "undetected yaw" problem noted by Reimar on some of his earlier types, and by the USAF on the YB-49.

And, that's what I'm getting at. The easiest fix in the late 40's was add a vertical tail or two. That's what the NACA recommended to Northrop on several of his flying wing prototypes. I think that it's very likely that the Horten brothers couldn't fix stability problems in their designs at higher speeds any more than Northrop, or anybody else, could have. The technology at the time just wasn't up to it.

You categorically stated the "point" that the Horten type would have run into high-subsonic issues, and offered an urban myth in support. That claim was as unjustifiable as the myth is at best a half-truth; in actual fact we have no way of knowing how the Ho 229 would have behaved. Horten's technology might or might not have been up to it. We should not pretend that we know one way or the other - and that is my point.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

.

Northrop started off with low speed true flying wings like the N9M. What happens is as the speed of this type of aircraft increases, they become more and more laterally unstable. Adding a tail--pre-computer flight controls--becomes necessary. Had the Horten IX / Go 229 gotten more flight testing at high speeds it too would have suffered instability in flight and necessitated modification, most likely with adding a tail

The decrease in directional instability at high speeds is primarily associated with changes in the aerodynamics at transonic speeds and above (see for example https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA319978.pdf). None of the Northrop wings ever got significantly into that regime, all of them were problematic and needed their fins at much lower speeds.
Other factors which affect it include wing loading and altitude (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19930081898/downloads/19930081898.pdf). High-speed types generally have higher wing loading than lower-speed types, in order to reduce parasitic drag. But this is more about decreasing stability by design rather than the plane in flight. Here, high speeds are generally only attainable at high altitudes, and likewise a plane's maximum altitude can only be reached at maximum flying speed. So as a plane files faster, it must fly higher and it will thus become less stable. and this creates an indirect relationship between speed and stability.
The Ho/Go flying wing had nether forward fuselage nor tail fin, so its stability dynamics would have differed markedly from the norm. Moreover its low-drag design was intended to achieve those high speeds at lower altitudes, reducing the instability effect. Its high-speed characteristics are nevertheless an open question. Reimar Horten never fully fathomed the "Mitteneffekt", the role of the centre section in the 3D flow over the wing. The effect of the bulges around the engines was unknown, especially when they were changed to a larger-diameter type. Gotha made significant changes to the upper profile, including changes, of which Reimar was highly critical, to the all-important cockpit canopy/fairing on the Go 229. Beyond noting that Horten's own design flew in prototype form and proved reasonably flyable, I would hesitate to be dogmatic about any aspect of either version's flight characteristics, at whatever speed or altitude. My guess is that it would at least have suffered the same "undetected yaw" problem noted by Reimar on some of his earlier types, and by the USAF on the YB-49.

And, that's what I'm getting at. The easiest fix in the late 40's was add a vertical tail or two. That's what the NACA recommended to Northrop on several of his flying wing prototypes. I think that it's very likely that the Horten brothers couldn't fix stability problems in their designs at higher speeds any more than Northrop, or anybody else, could have. The technology at the time just wasn't up to it.

You categorically stated the "point" that the Horten type would have run into high-subsonic issues, and offered an urban myth in support. That claim was as unjustifiable as the myth is at best a half-truth; in actual fact we have no way of knowing how the Ho 229 would have behaved. Horten's technology might or might not have been up to it. We should not pretend that we know one way or the other - and that is my point.

Everybody else that did flying wings had that issue come up to one degree or another, why wouldn't the Hortens? They never did test a high speed all-wing design in flight. The Ho IX / Go 229 never did any high speed flight trials before the war ended. I think the only way to test that theory would be for somebody to build a replica and try it.

 

[steelpillow]

Everybody else that did flying wings had that issue come up to one degree or another, why wouldn't the Hortens? They never did test a high speed all-wing design in flight. The Ho IX / Go 229 never did any high speed flight trials before the war ended. I think the only way to test that theory would be for somebody to build a replica and try it.

Wrong again. I already noted that Dunne did not have that problem. Nor does the Rogallo-delta style wing. If you meant specifically high-speed flying wings, "everybody else" equates to "nobody"; nobody else actually flew an all-wing at speed until the digital age and artificial stability.

Why wouldn't the Hortens have that trouble? I already explained that at length; Reimar was streets ahead of everybody else. Some of his gliders had even been produced in modest quantity as club builds and homebuilds. But don't take my word for that (as if you would!), you should read the Smithsonian's take on him, Only the Wing by Russell E. Lee. It makes a remarkable contrast to Cole's writing style and complements his story quite well. And remember again, nobody is saying that the Ho 229 would not have had the trouble, merely that it is a distinct possibility.

I appreciate to opportunity to air and explode dogmatically-stated myths, but it has probably gone far enough now.