So, I was watching some YouTube videos, and one of the channels I subscribe to (Found and Explained) had a video on the Ho 229 and its derivatives that never left the drawing board.
I really like his channel, it focuses on all sorts of prototype and unbuilt designs; it's a lot of fun, and usually well researched. But, he's admitted he's new to the world of aviation and was never really an enthusiast before making videos on the subject. So naturally, he sometimes makes mistakes. But in the videos I pointed out above, he continually refers to the Horton aircraft as being 'stealth' or 'stealthy'.
That's a very popular theory among amateur aviation enthusiasts; that the Ho 229 (or any other advanced design) was the wonder weapon that would have turned the tables for the Nazis in WW2 if produced in proper numbers. They say this and boast that the Horton design specifically was the first "stealth" fighter. Of course, the Horton is not the sole focus of this delusion; for some reason loads of people love to fantasize that some wonder weapon would have changed history if it just was produced in numbers.
Well, I'm just here as a friend, to tell you to stop it. Stop the delusions. No, it freaking was NOT the first stealth fighter. No, it wouldn't have been enough to change the course of the war, even if produced in numbers. This stupid tripe was started by a special the Discovery Channel aired years ago, and people have latched on to it as if it was proven, but it really only has the same validity and proof as Ancient Aliens.
Now, yes it was among the first successful flying wing designs as we know it today. Being a flying wing, it's the same BASIC design used by the current-day B-2 stealth bomber. Yes, the reason the stealth bomber uses the design is that it makes it naturally harder to track on radar while lending itself to a naturally lower radar cross section (RCS) from certain angles.
However, even the Discovery Channel's special on the Horton aircraft dispels this very myth while trying to prove it. For example:
In the special, they take a replica of the Ho 229 to a radar range run by Northrop Grumman to test the radar returns of the aircraft. In this test, they even stated they did NOT include ANY metal components needed in the workable version of the aircraft, including the engines. This is critical, as any respectable aeronautical engineer will tell you that engine faces and intakes are a huge contributor of RCS. Any metal components are also a large factor in creating radar returns (obviously), which is why all stealth aircraft use radar absorbent and deflecting coatings on top of their unique shape. The coatings being a primary component of stealth technology.
 |
| The RCS of a variety of common aircraft compared to stealth aircraft |
That being said, the results of the test in the special still showed only a 20% reduction in the Ho 229's RCS compared to a common Bf 109 fighter. Compare that to the B-2, who's RCS is near 0.6% of that of a non-stealthy aircraft of similar size. Being 80% of what is already there is NOT an impressive number. That, and when you integrate the engines and metal components back into the Horton, I really don't see how the RCS would stay that low, if not increase beyond the Bf 109's.
The Horton Ho 229 is an amazing, beautiful aircraft that was far ahead of it's time, with impressive performance projections (that certainly influenced modern designs); but so was the Me 262, and that didn't help the Nazis either. Between incompetent upper leadership, misuse and lack of resources, a significant depletion of experienced pilots due to combat losses, and a lack of training for replacements, the Ho 229 had no chance of changing any aspect of the war, even if produced in numbers.
The allies would still have made tactics to counter the new threat as well, just as they did for the Me 262. In the immortal words of the late, great Chuck Yeager, "The first time I saw a jet, I shot it down."
I still like to think of historical "what-ifs", but I don't get the desire of some to fantasize that the Nazis were just one weapon away from ruling the Western front. But hey, since I'm on a roll with my Columbus post and dispelling common myths, here are some other bombshells:
No comments:
Post a Comment