uksubs
Lieutenant Colonel
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 7,050
WINGS OF WAR (2 new planes) newsletter. (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter wayne556517
- Start date
jazzeum
Four Star General
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 38,433
Again, Neil is correct. In January 1945 one flight of No. 616 Meteors joined No. 84 Group, 2nd Tactical Force in Melsbroek, Belgium and in March Meteors were in operation, both in ground attack missions and against the V1s.
Not extensive but more so than the Horten.
Not extensive but more so than the Horten.
Hoverbug
Private 2
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2012
- Messages
- 103
Perhaps the biggest question about the 229 is whether it was at all suited to its mission. How many flying wing fighters have we seen since? There are obvious advantages (and some significant disadvantages) to the flying wing as a bomber, but the scale moves significantly towards the disadvantage side of the equation when looking at what makes a good fighter. Sure, it's possible to see the 229 as a mythic wonder weapon, but it's even easier to see it as the ultimate representation of the lack of rationality in the Third Reich's aircraft production - endless fantasy projects consuming intellectual talent and real resources while basic needs were not met.
The YB-35 and YB-49 Northrop Flying Wing bomber prototypes were flown in test programs without computer control systems. The YB-49 maximum speed was 495 mph and was the predesessor of the B2.
The HO-229 was designed and developed as a fast bomber, not as a fighter!
Many design prototypes never went into production; but their testing led to advances in aerodynamics i.e. HO 229, Bell X-1, X-15 etc.
All early jet engines were unreliable with short operating lifetimes. Reliabilty was a problem well into the 1950's; yet most sucessful fighter aircraft of the Korean war were jets i.e. Shooting Star, Panther, Saber, Meteor, MIG-15 etc.
The HO-229 was designed and developed as a fast bomber, not as a fighter!
Many design prototypes never went into production; but their testing led to advances in aerodynamics i.e. HO 229, Bell X-1, X-15 etc.
All early jet engines were unreliable with short operating lifetimes. Reliabilty was a problem well into the 1950's; yet most sucessful fighter aircraft of the Korean war were jets i.e. Shooting Star, Panther, Saber, Meteor, MIG-15 etc.
Guy
Major
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2010
- Messages
- 6,571
Neil
You will never here me say that I do not appreciate what the allies did to liberate my country. Your sentimental remark"tell that to the pilots ...." has nothing to do with the subject in hand; Please get some more accurate info !!!!!
It was not in January 1945 that 616 squadron was moved to Belgium but late Febuary 1945. 4 Meteors were sent to Melsbroek as an air defence against possible Me262 attacks but in the event they did not ever face them. The closest they came to air combat was when a group of Arados attacked Melsbroek air field but all 4 Meteors stayed on the ground. The Meteor pilots were still forbidden to fly over German occupied territory or to go East of Eindhoven.
In April 1945, 616 squadron was moved to Holland ( Gilze)in support of the Canadian troops. The 1st operational sortie of 616 squadron, a GROUND ATTACK mission was flown on April 16th. The war ended 3 weeks later and 616 squadron during its stay on the Continent was never to encounter any German fighter plane.They never found any enemy aircraft to combat and only concentrated on ground targets; in particular vehicles .
Lets turn back now to the WINGS OF WAR( new planes) newsletter and any further discussion I would prefer to do through PMs
Last edited:
uksubs
Lieutenant Colonel
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 7,050
Guy Funny that at the start of the thread you said I was attacking a member of the forum but that all you been doing to me with your rude reply ! Your the one who said the Gloster meteor never saw action not me and if you read my post where did I say they were based in Europe in January 1945 also you never back up your claims about the Ho 299 with facts ! but changed the subject to the Meteor instead ! I've been out to work all day and no access to a computer or my books but I still know more than you on the subject using Wikipedia lol! Before this I thought you were a top bloke but you gone down in my estimations with the way you carried yourself on this subject !
uksubs
Lieutenant Colonel
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 7,050
Think your find there was only three prototype that took to the air and it never made mass production , did the bomber version get of the drawing board and take to the sky that the question !?
uksubs
Lieutenant Colonel
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 7,050
First of what does the Yb49 have to do with the Ho229 during the WW2 and second the Northrop flying wing never went past the prototype stage I wonder why please tell ?
Hoverbug
Private 2
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2012
- Messages
- 103
Not a bomber:
http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?object=nasm_A19600324000
The 229 suffered from that problem that bedeviled many late war German "advanced" designs - the technology was not well matched to the mission. It's a remarkable design, to be sure, but was it the basis for a viable combat aircraft? The irony here is that the totalitarian state did a far poorer job than the Allies in exerting rationalized planning over scarce resources and quickly rejecting projects that might have been promising, but that were not likely to pay off in the near horizon.
http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?object=nasm_A19600324000
The 229 suffered from that problem that bedeviled many late war German "advanced" designs - the technology was not well matched to the mission. It's a remarkable design, to be sure, but was it the basis for a viable combat aircraft? The irony here is that the totalitarian state did a far poorer job than the Allies in exerting rationalized planning over scarce resources and quickly rejecting projects that might have been promising, but that were not likely to pay off in the near horizon.
uksubs
Lieutenant Colonel
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 7,050
The HO 229 was designed to meet an RLM requirement for a fast bomber. The specifications were: 1000KG Bomb Load, 1000 Kilometer range and 1000 KPH Airspeed. The prototype was clocked at a speed of 977 KPH. The low drag flying wing design was key to achieving this perfomance.
uksubs
Lieutenant Colonel
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 7,050
I think your missing the point you said the Ho 229 was a better plane than the Gloster Meteor and P80 when the Ho 229 never made it past being a test plane and had no impact in WW2 where as the other two planes went into full production and Gloster Meteor saw action in WW2 , there book full of German what if jet fighter faster and better than the Allies on paper but it count for nothing if they never got made into full production planes .
uksubs
Lieutenant Colonel
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 7,050
Hoverbug
Private 2
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2012
- Messages
- 103
This is precisely the issue. The RLM issued a requirement for a bomber and the Hortens built something else. There's a reason the model has forward firing cannons. The aircraft shows the complete disconnect between the industry and the military. As a technical achievement, it was a remarkable aircraft, but as a weapon of war, it was a mess. The Meteor was a far more basic and conservative design, yet it made a real contribution. The 229 consumed resources (particularly intellectual) and contributed nothing, and it's difficult to image a scenario where it would have, even if given another year.
Many bombers had forward firing cannons i.e. Mosquito, A-20 Havoc, A-26 Invader. Attack bombers were multiroll weapons. The P-38 was designed as a high altitude interceptor but was used as a fighter, strike fighter and photo recon aircraft much like the Mosquito was. The performance of the P-38 and the Mosquito are virtually identical, as were their missions.
I would classify the HO 229 as an attack bomber not as a fighter; its mission would be equivalet to an Arado AR 234; but with superior performance.
I would classify the HO 229 as an attack bomber not as a fighter; its mission would be equivalet to an Arado AR 234; but with superior performance.
uksubs
Lieutenant Colonel
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 7,050
You need to make your mind up lol
The HO 229 was designed to meet an RLM requirement for a fast bomber. The specifications were: 1000KG Bomb Load, 1000 Kilometer range and 1000 KPH Airspeed. The prototype was clocked at a speed of 977 KPH. The low drag flying wing design was key to achieving this perfomance.
Phantom Warrior
Major
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 6,881
Amazing how much debate there can be when two things are compared on different bases. What constitutes best or better.
Terry
Terry
I agree Terry; debat is good especially when the subject is interesting. I have always conciderd flying wings to be interesting aircraft and the HO 229 was a very innovative version that exceeded the performance of all contemporary jet aircraft. The ME 163 Rocket Interceptor had a speed of 595 mph and the HO 229 even exceeded that; truly amazing for the period. I am very pleased that Thomas Gunn has made a fine model of this exceptional aircraft. The Dragon 1/48 scale styrene kit was the only accurate model previously available and was a bear to build. I have it hanging over my desk as I type this missive. I have a deep interest in early jet aircraft and an extensive library; so its fun to use this knowledge in a friendly debate! I appreciate Uksubs interest in the Meteor. The F4 version with Rolls Royce engines reached a maximum speed of 600 mph in a prototype tested in May of 1945. Concederably faster than the F1 version at 458 mph with the Whipple engines. Meteors saw extensive combat in Korea.
uksubs
Lieutenant Colonel
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 7,050
Have you seen the 1/32 scale version of the Ho 229 ?
http://www.zoukeimura.co.jp/en/products/sws08_Ho229horten.html