Awesome WW2 experimental Aircraft

Ziller crashed the Go229V1 on its 3rd test flight, fatally, so this 'mock dogfight' would have had too have taken place during the first test flight (massively unlikely) or the second (highly unlikely)

The Go229 would not have lasted long on one engine, or in combat with a Vampire or a P-80.
How would it fare with both engines?
I know people say flying wing designs need fly by wire tech but I've seen radio controlled flying wing designs on Youtube that perform beautifully, they don't have fly by wire so what am I missing here?
 
Ziller crashed the Go229V1 on its 3rd test flight, fatally, so this 'mock dogfight' would have had too have taken place during the first test flight (massively unlikely) or the second (highly unlikely)

The Go229 would not have lasted long on one engine, or in combat with a Vampire or a P-80.

The real reason for doubt is the term, dogfight. Performance of the Me-262 was fairly quantified, and dogfighting was not a quality for which it received high marks. Capriciously unlikely is possibly a better term.
 
How would it fare with both engines?
I know people say flying wing designs need fly by wire tech but I've seen radio controlled flying wing designs on Youtube that perform beautifully, they don't have fly by wire so what am I missing here?

DogHouse1Lg.jpg


There is a story of a model Horten in 1998 which flew beautifully twice, and entered uncommanded and uncorrectible oscillation on the third flight and crashed. There are other Horten models, for $2200, available. They fly, or they crash. Nobody dies. Scale models rarely replicate full scale, meaning lawn mowers and dog houses can fly well, and Fokker DR-1s aren't so scary.
 
I know people say flying wing designs need fly by wire tech but I've seen radio controlled flying wing designs on Youtube that perform beautifully, they don't have fly by wire so what am I missing here?

Low Reynolds number airfoils behave quite differently at 15' wingspans and under, than at 30'+
At slow speeds, all you need it a flat plate, no airfoil, and you still won't have turbulent airflow with some designs, the parkfliers

2nd, R/C aircraft typically have small changes in CoG as fuel is consumed, unlike full scale
 
View attachment 353625

There is a story of a model Horten in 1998 which flew beautifully twice, and entered uncommanded and uncorrectible oscillation on the third flight and crashed. There are other Horten models, for $2200, available. They fly, or they crash. Nobody dies. Scale models rarely replicate full scale, meaning lawn mowers and dog houses can fly well, and Fokker DR-1s aren't so scary.
Low Reynolds number airfoils behave quite differently at 15' wingspans and under, than at 30'+
At slow speeds, all you need it a flat plate, no airfoil, and you still won't have turbulent airflow with some designs, the parkfliers

2nd, R/C aircraft typically have small changes in CoG as fuel is consumed, unlike full scale
I see, thanks for clearing that up, I knew I was missing something there but wasn't exactly sure what it was.
This why I love this site, its entertaining and informative.
 
There was a jet powered seaplane fighter the British experiments with after the war (SR 1/A), also the Seamaster and Sea Dart for the USN. Because of the performance costs of a seaplane/flying boat, issues with corrosion, and the improvements in aircraft carriers and the extensive network of good airfields, the advantages of seaplanes/flying boats in being able to use any appropriate bit of water were no longer important.
 
There was a jet powered seaplane fighter the British experiments with after the war (SR 1/A), also the Seamaster and Sea Dart for the USN. Because of the performance costs of a seaplane/flying boat, issues with corrosion, and the improvements in aircraft carriers and the extensive network of good airfields, the advantages of seaplanes/flying boats in being able to use any appropriate bit of water were no longer important.

The Blackburn B.20 and Saro Lerwick failed but their role was taken by 700 Catalina flying boats in RAF service. The Cat had a fairly illustrious career in WWII, spotting Bismarck, the Midway invasion fleet, and the Ceylon attack fleet, being the only Midway-based aircraft to damage the Midway invasion fleet, sinking rather a lot of submarines and rescuing lots of drowning people. I think it was a bit important. The Grumman Albatross continued the search and rescue role a bit longer, through Korea to Vietnam.
 

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
There is a story of a model Horten in 1998 which flew beautifully twice, and entered uncommanded and uncorrectible oscillation on the third flight and crashed. There are other Horten models, for $2200, available. They fly, or they crash. Nobody dies. Scale models rarely replicate full scale, meaning lawn mowers and dog houses can fly well, and Fokker DR-1s aren't so scary.

Replica fullsize Fokker DR.1s are also not so scary when they are powered by something other than a rotary (which I think is all of them).
 
Replica fullsize Fokker DR.1s are also not so scary when they are powered by something other than a rotary (which I think is all of them).

The Warner Scarab made good sense, but not everyone passed on a Le Rhone, so, not quite all.
 
Dear cortz#9,
Fly-by-wire is not mandatory for flying wings.
Look at all the Convair, Dassault, Dyke, Fauvell, Horten, Kadper, Marske, Mitchell, Verhees, Wainfain, etc. flying winged sailplanes and power planes that flew gracefully before FBW was invented.
Flying wings have small (pitch and yaw) stability margins. They need to be carefully balanced for hands-off flight.
Modern flying wings (e.g. B-2 bomber) tend to have FBW because that is the current fashion. FBW allows farther aft CofG which is more efficient (less trim drag) but less stable and more difficult for a human to fly. Most of the "teen" series fighters have relaxed stability margins that allow more efficient cruise and faster turns at the expense of stability. FBW compensates for poor stability far faster than a human pilot can.
 
Dear cortz#9,
Fly-by-wire is not mandatory for flying wings.
Look at all the Convair, Dassault, Dyke, Fauvell, Horten, Kadper, Marske, Mitchell, Verhees, Wainfain, etc. flying winged sailplanes and power planes that flew gracefully before FBW was invented.
Flying wings have small (pitch and yaw) stability margins. They need to be carefully balanced for hands-off flight.
Modern flying wings (e.g. B-2 bomber) tend to have FBW because that is the current fashion. FBW allows farther aft CofG which is more efficient (less trim drag) but less stable and more difficult for a human to fly. Most of the "teen" series fighters have relaxed stability margins that allow more efficient cruise and faster turns at the expense of stability. FBW compensates for poor stability far faster than a human pilot can.
OK, I've been told differently by people on this site whenever flying wing designs come up, especially when the Horton Ho-229 comes up.
 
OK, I've been told differently by people on this site whenever flying wing designs come up, especially when the Horton Ho-229 comes up.

You haven't really heard different things. You just haven't been told everything, because it takes too long. It's very complex, if you want to understand it. The Burgess-Dunne flying wing dates back to before WWI and it was very stable. It was too stable to be a good airplane. But the only fly by wire was the wires that held it together. The trick is to find a reason, an advantage, something a flying wing is better at, that other aircraft can't do as well, or much better. Aircraft come in all shapes and sizes for a good reason. Northrop made wings that flew, and wings that crashed. Computer-aided design certainly makes it easier to follow design criteria in construction of wings which cater to certain requirements which might have avoided many past failures. Still, I would foresee problems for the Horten approaching the trans-sonic regime had the flight testing gone that far.
 
AM-1s_armed.jpg


The Martin AM Mauler as heavy on the potential weapon load as it was on the required maintenance load - and for that last reason was replaced by the Skyraider - but just look at it - that is mk13 3 torps and 12 x 250 pound bombs!!!

Tested from late Aug 44 - it took 3 years to iron out the issues

The reason it was replaced by the Skyraider was it flew like a PIG. I knew an older gentleman who was a pilot of them The load shown was a combination PR stunt and Max load test. the maintenance load was heavy because of the R-4360 Wasp Major engine. The Air Force eventually worked out most of the bugs on the B-50, B-36 & KC-97 but the big problem was the handling characteristics. He said the happiest day in the squadron was when they turned in the Mauler and got Skyraiders!
 
Top