Duel: Gotha Go 229 vs. Lockheed P-80

[Romantic Technofreak]

This is the duel of the two fastest fighters of WWII - if rocket projects stay unconsidered, the Lockheed P-80:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/b5a88db5.jpg

and the Gotha Go 229 (Horten Ho IX):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v475/Coridano/99afaf5f.jpg

Background is, though Germany´s obviuos superiority in the jet aircraft development at the end of WWII, this superiority could have faded very fast if the war had taken only a bit longer. The P-80 was equipped with only one engine, the General Electric J-33, delivering a thrust of at least around 1.700 kp. The contemporary German design, the Heinkel HeS 011 jet engine, could not be finished before the war ended and was not pursued any further when the Allied got possesion of it. To keep up with the latest Allied designs, a revolutionary concept had to be choosen, the flying wing, but equipped with two of the strongest German jet engines obtainable, Jumo 004s with a thrust of around 900 kp.

So, what is your opinion about these two? Also consider that the P-, later F-80 was not seen as satisfying during the Korean war, while the flight characteristics of the Go 229 were looked upon very good, especially the Horten design cares for very good landing characteristics ("like on a pillow")...

[GregP]

Hi RT!

The P-80 was not considered suitable in Korea only because of develolments between WWII and Korea. Specifically, the P-80 was fine when used against early Yak jets , La-9, 11s, and other piston planes.

The advances shown by the MiG-15 and F-86 were simply superior to a straight-wing WWII design. Except for that, the P-80 was just fine, and soldiered on for many decades.

The Horten Ho-IX was supposed to be a very good aircraft, but we don't really know ... it never made it into combat. I have my doubts since no flying wing built before or since has made a good fighter. As a bomber, the B-2 flies very nicely ... with the aid of multiple computers. Of course, the reason for the multiple computyers is design-related, and there is really no NEED for computers unless the center of gravity is allowed to be too far aft.

So, I'll hold my opinion that the Ho-IX was not a combat-ready aircraft, particularly as a fighter. If carefully flown, it may well have handled well. If thrown about in air combat, it very well might have been fatal ... we don't know.

I THINK the Horten was probably a nice-handling plane simply becasue the Horten were known for that, but we simply don't know.

Rudy Opitz is still alive and well in the U.S.A. maybe HE knows!

[Pete57]

I believe the Horten's equivalent - and showing similar aerodynamic problems - was the Northrop P-79. This would be a more evenly matched duel.:)
I agree with GregP: the technology of the time could simply not cope fast enough with the controllability problems a flying wing poses, and it is not a coincidence that both the Horten and the XP-79 prototypes suffered fatal crashes during their test programs.[V]

As a side note, I think that the He.S 109-011 would have made a fine engine, with far better reliability than the Jumo 109-004.
The engine-life would still have been short when compared to the contemporary Allied turbojets and this due to the shortage of nickel suffered by Germany, but the combination of axial/centrifugal compressors would have partly solved the surge problems of the pure axial German turbojets of the time.
All Heinkel turbojets showed this arrangement and indeed the first engine scheduled for production, the He.S 8, was a remarkably compact design, slightly wider than the contemporary, axial Jumo and BMW designs, much shorter and with a comparable thrust.
But Heinkel did not enjoy the RLM’s favors…:D

How about a P-80/He.162 duel?[8D]

[Ricky]

Now, as I understand it (although I may well be wrong!) the Horten flying wings were known for their stable handling, especially compared to the British & American equivalents.
Also, didn't at least one Horten prototype crash due to an engine failure?

Many prototypes crash, but the design often matures to a great plane.

[Kutscha]

The Horten never flew at high speed so its handling characteristcs were never know. At the slow speeds it did fly, it was very docile.

Yes the Horten did crash because of an engine failure but it also had to cross an railway embankment which it hit. The Hortens also said the pilot made some errors on his approach, which if he not made, the a/c would have landed safely.

[Pete57]

I can't remember if the cause of the Ho.229 crash was damage resulting from the engine failure, or loss of control due to asymmetric thrust.

The conventional, heavier Arado 234, with the same two Junkers Jumo 109-004B turbojets, could be flown on one engine and so could the slightly lighter Messerschmitt 262.;)

From http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/flying_wing/Tech8.htm

"These so-called flying wing designs were long a dream of a number of designers but did not become practical until recently. The biggest problem found when building a flying wing aircraft is that such designs are inherently unstable and they do not easily stay level in flight...The B-2 was an example of modern technology finally catching up with an earlier idea. By the 1970s, aircraft designers were deliberately developing airplanes like the F-16 that were unstable in flight, and therefore inherently maneuverable, controlling them in flight by sophisticated modern computer control systems. Computer control systems now also made it possible to control the unstable flying wing design."

My hat off to both Northrop and the Horten brothers for their bold attempts, but I still believe the times were not ripe for a practical flying-wing design...MHO only though:)

[Wuzak]

My understanding was that Horten's flying wing research did not suffer the same stability problems that Northrop suffered.

[Pete57]

I am still of the opinion that flying wings have not been a practical option until recently.
Even so, the design is still not suited for fighters where maneuverability is a main issue: modern computer technology has, so far, turned flying wings into a viable design only for bombers whose mission profiles does not require frequent changes in flight attitude.

The Horten flying wing was possibly not plagued (or not to the same extent) by the HIGH-SPEED stability problems of the Northrop flying wing, but ALL flying wings do have stability problems, and only recent technology can satisfactorily overcome them.

It is interesting to compare the similarities in both the XP-79’s and the Ho.229’s accidents.

Ho.229 (02/18/1945), from http://www.warbirdforum.com/horten3.htm

“At the end of a second successful test flight on February 3, 1945, Ziller deployed the aircraft's braking parachute too soon on his landing approach. The result was a hard landing which damaged the aircraft's main undercarrlage. Consequently, the third test flight in the Horten H IX did not take place until February 18, 1945. Returning after about 45 minutes in the air, Ziller was seen to dive the aircraft and pull up several times at an altitude of about 800 meters, apparently in an effort to relight an engine. The undercarriage was lowered unusually early, at an altitude of about 400 meters. The V2's speed decreased and, accompanied by increasing engine noise, its nose dropped and the aircraft entered a right-hand turn. The H IX completed a 360 degree turn with its wings banked 20 degrees. It then accelerated and completed a second and third 360 degree turn, the angle of bank increasing all the while. As it began a fourth circle, the aircraft struck the frozen turf beyond the airfield boundary.”

Ziller had reacted to the speed decay by naturally applying full power on the remaining good engine (the left one), this created an asymmetric thrust situation that could not be compensated at low speed by the aircraft spoilers.

XP-79 (09/12/1945) from http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Northrop/Northrop_address/body_northrop_address.html
“As no alternative rocket engine was available, it became necessary to modify the design to incorporate turbojet power plants, and the second of the XP-79 series, called the XP-79B, was completed with two Westinghouse B-19 turbojets and first airborne on September 12, 1945. The takeoff for this flight was normal, and for 15 minutes the airplane was flown in a beautiful demonstration. The pilot indicated mounting confidence by executing more and more maneuvers of a type that would not be expected unless he were thoroughly satisfied with the behavior of the airplane.
After about 15 minutes of flying, the airplane entered what appeared to be a normal slow roll, from which it did not recover. As the rotation about the longitudinal axis continued the nose gradually dropped, and at the time of impact the airplane appeared to be in a steep vertical spin. The pilot endeavored to leave the aircraft but the speed was so high that he was unable to clear it successfully. Unfortunately, there was insufficient evidence to fully determine the cause of the disaster. However, in view of his prone position, a powerful, electrically controlled trim tab had been installed in the lateral controls to relieve the pilot of excessive loads. It is believed that a deliberate slow roll may have been attempted (as the pilot had previously slow rolled and looped other flying-wing aircraft developed by the company) and that during this maneuver something failed in the lateral controls in such a way that the pilot was overpowered by the electrical trim mechanism.”

In my opinion, the reduced yaw-control, typical of the flying wings was the ultimate cause of both accidents, so going back to the original purpose of this post, I think the Horten would have been a very useful research vehicle, but its combat usefulness would have been much questionable as a light bomber (i.e. a la Arado 234) and none as a fighter, and that is why I would still consider a He.162/P-80 'duel' a much more balanced affair.;)

[Ricky]

... except the Salamander would lose by a mile.;)

Nice post though.:)

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

... except the Salamander would lose by a mile.;)

Nice post though.:)

remember the French, and the American Army, American Navy, British Canadian Military all used the same design of swept flying wing aircraft thirty years before and found it to stable as a military platform.

[DoBravery]

Since this is all hypothetical. . .

I would think that the P-80 would be a bit more manueverable since its lighter and I will venture to say the Go 229 being more sled like. Since they have similiar speeds, the advantage would go to the P-80 if the two were to mix it up. In fact if the speeds of both planes drop due to manuevering, I see the advantage going to the P-80 and its straight wings big time.

If the Go 229 restrains itself and only engages in hit and run attacks, I can see the advantage going to the German.

1. It would be harder to blow apart a flying wing as opposed to a conventional design with tail, thin wings, rudder, and skinnier fuselage.
2. Go 229 has 2 engines--P-80 has 1
3. Go 229 would probably have 4x 30mm, the P-80 .50 cal.

As mentioned, the two probably have the same speed. The Go 229 doesn't have the speed advantage to boom and zoom. If it can keep its speed high, avoid a dogfight, and they just make passes at each other, the Go 229 would win more battles in the long run. In an even exchange, the Go 229 has more firepower and could probably absorb more damage.

Slight advantage goes to the Go 229, but like I said, I think the P-80 would out-manuever it and wins dogfight engagements.

[Romantic Technofreak]

The Horten brothers found something they called "center effect", to summon the maximum of lift exactly on the center of gravity. To really understand that, you have to be aircraft engineer and familiar with the theme (I´m neither). I could not discuss this in the usual German forum because the people there did not comment very expert-like on this.

The center effect, at least the Hortens claim so, gives the aircraft a very fine stability. Sorrily this was never copied by any other producer, especially not by Northrop, who suffered severe losses of prototypes and, like Greg stated, needs maximum computer help to keep the B-2 on course.

But it is very imaginable that even a center-effected flying wing becomes uncontrollable at the event of one-sided thrust. This would make the Go 229 very vulnerable, it couldn´t come home one one engine... (Shit! I want an asymmetric flying wing!!![xx(][:p])

The P-80 with its straight wings, Greg also said this already, would not have been very maneuverable at speeds near the sonic wall... what, in my eyes, makes it inferior to the Go 229. It also couldn´t go very far with one engine lost...

But I think the P-80, like Ricky said, would be miles-high superior to the He 162. The latter one is weak on engine power, primitively built, has doubtful flight characteristics... another witness of exaggerated Heinkel ambition...:([8)]

[BuzzLightyear]

I think the generalization that Northop designs were unstable and Horten designs were not is oversimplistic, and ignores that fact that both developers had successes and failures.

Most early work with both companies were with gliders.

The two most comparable planes developed by Horton and Northrop seem to have been the Ho V and N-2 respectively. While the Ho V was characterized as having unacceptable directional stability, the N-2 was reported to have very good directional stability.

The Northrop MX-324 and 334 were supposed to have had good handling characterisitics.

The XP-79B crashed on its first flight, and no attempt to correct the problem that caused the crash was made due to a cancellation of the program.

And the Hortons never flew anything like the XB-35 and XB-49, so comparison there is impossible.

--

As far as the P-80 versus Go-229 contest, I'd give it to the P-80. It would have certainly been more manueverable. It had a roll rate equal to that of the Fw-190, while flying wings roll about as fast as a fat woman lying on a wooden bench in sauna. It could turn very well. It had a very high ceiling. For fighter versus fighter combat, it had superior armament.

As far as the He-162 goes, it was reported to have been unstable due airflow problems around the wing roots due to the manner in which the wings connected to the fuselage.

[Lightning]

Hi RT,

In order to achieve balance (stability) on a wing, it is the "center of pressure" that must be kept close to the center of gravity--not the "center of lift".

There is a multitude of force vectors acting upon a wing in flight. These forces affect the wing in different magnitudes and at varying angles over its entire surface; they include all of the lift and all of the drag components. Just as all of the contributions of weight can be calculated to be acting through one specific point (the center of gravity), so can all of the aerodynamic forces be calculated to be acting through one specific point--the "center of pressure".

The center of pressure and the *center of gravity*--(Should read "center of lift". Corrected by edit.)-- rarely coincide, although they can be close to one another. The trick is to get the center of pressure to act through the center of gravity, thereby achieving balance.

Regards,
Lightning

[Pete57]

From Flight Journal, October 2003 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200310/ai_n9341981/pg_4

"...While a flying wing may be the purest form of airplane, it is also one of the most difficult configurations to design well. The conventional "wing, body, tail" configuration exists for very good technical reasons. The major advantage of the conventional configuration is that each piece of the machine performs one major function. The wing provides lift and the fuselage carries the payload. The horizontal tail stabilizes the airplane in pitch and provides pitch control, and the vertical tail stabilizes the airplane directionally and provides yaw control.

The designer of a conventional airplane can affect specific airframe characteristics by adjusting the shape or size of one airframe component. Because the components' functions are relatively independent of one another, changing one component to affect one aspect of the design's aerodynamics or balance will not have a large effect on other characteristics.

On a flying wing, the designer has no such luxury. There is an old saying that any airplane is a bunch of compromises flying in formation. On a flying wing, however, the compromises talk to one another..."

I think this summarizes the flying-wing problems best, and by the way, I recommend the full article to all those who want to learn more about this, specific subject.

The Heinkel He-162’s main problem was its lateral instability that would have greatly hampered its capabilities in a dogfight.
The problem seems to have stemmed from the excessive dihedral the airplane had been designed with and this fact, compounded with the haste to put the aircraft into production to meet the strict RLM requirement, led the aircraft’s designers, Siegfried Guenther and Karl Schwaerzler, to resort to a ‘quick-fix’.
The satisfactory solution would have been to decrease the dihedral itself, but this would have dramatically slowed the airplane’s production that – it should be remembered – was specifically designed for a super-massive and rapid production program (aptly called the ‘Volksjäger’ - the people’s fighter - program), instead Guenther and Schwaerzler, increased the surface of the twin fin and rudders and tilted the aircraft’s wingtips down.
This resulted in negligible delays in the aircraft’s production and indeed partly cured the instability problem, but this was never eradicated and the Salamander was always known for its reluctance to be ‘kicked around the sky’: if the pilot did not exercise judgment in the use of the rudder, the airplane could and did bite back with dire results as found out by the RAF pilot who was killed in November 1945, during the aircraft’s display in Farnborough.

The second problem that the aircraft displayed was its short endurance (around 30 minutes) that required a careful fuel management on the pilot’s side, adding to his burden in an aerial combat.
This problem caused the death of at least two JG-1’s pilots who had tried to dead-stick the aircraft back to base following fuel exhaustion.
Furthermore, the choice of the engine location, deprived the pilot of his visibility of the critical 6-o’clock area, and in case of an ejection-seat problems, it would have made abandoning the aircraft nothing short of a nightmare.

On the plus side, the aircraft was relatively easy, cheap and quick to produce and maintain, and (the A-2 version) had an adequate armament for the fighter vs fighter role.
I don’t think the Salamander was underpowered if compared to the contemporary jet fighters, its single 1760 lb.s.t. (800 kg.s.t.) BMW 109-003 engine giving it a thrust/max. loaded weight ratio of 0.284, as compared to the P-80A’s of 0.275 with the 3850 lb.s.t. (1746 kg.s.t.) General Electric J33-GE-11 or Allison J33-A-9, and 0.285 with the 4000lb.s.t. (1814 kg.s.t.) Allison J33-A-17.

[alyster]

Was Ho IX even a fighter? It's should of been armed with 4*30mm, but by the protject("1000-1000-1000") I think they wanted a bomber capable of bombing England nomatter how strong the RAF is.

However, I wouldn't use Ho IX as a fighter even if Hitler would have me kill for not flying. It's covered with scrap wood for crying out loud and it's speed is 200km/h slower then it should of been by the protject. It's easy kill for P-80.

Only good point I found for Ho IX was it's low wing loading. However Polish campain showed that with higher wing loading, but faster Luftwaffe fighters ate the Polish airforce alive, so why would it be different this time?