Comments by "TheThirdMan" (@thethirdman225) on "Found And Explained" channel.

  1.  @saadman920  What are you talking about?
    5
  2.  @monstrogoth  The Hortens did exaggerate their success but there were many things besides handling characteristics that can sink a project like this. Governments are historically very conservative when it comes to choosing a project to back and this was, for most, a bit too radical. There are decades-old proposals for all-wing airliners which have never come to fruition, despite the obvious benefits and the fact that computer assisted controls have been available since the 1960s. By comparison, I again point out the huge number of hang glider designs that are similar to the Horten gliders and they don’t have fly-by-wire. These things are out there flying every day, using nothing but weight shifting to control them. Page 250 of William Green’s ”Warplanes of the Third Reich” says that handling characteristics of the prototype ”had exceeded the most sanguine expectations” when it was lost due to a compressor stall at low altitude. Now if you have a reference to show that there were serious controllability problems with the Horten design then put it up. Because none of the “evidence” you’re providing stacks up.
    4
  3. One of the reasons the American weren't interested in them is that they were cranks.
    4
  4. "Stability issues on theses early flying wing designs were terrible." No, no, no. Wrong, wrong, wrong. There have been plenty of tailless designs. The Hortens produced a tailless glider in the 1930s which worked perfectly well. The prototype Go-229 was reported by the test pilot to have exceptional handling but crashed due to other factors.
    3
  5.  @monstrogoth  "The main test pilot was one of Hortens Brothers." The main test pilot of the Go-229 was Lt Erwin Ziller. Another called Heinz Scheidhauer was also involved. "The political and war context that pushes every industrials to accept anything to avoid to enrolled in the army or in a weapon industry as a qualified worker." So? What does this prove? "The fact that all their work were taken by the americans and they almost did nothing with it (Northrop has already worked on flying wing before WWII)." Once again, what does this prove? "The fact that even after the war, a part from the hortens continued to work on flying wing but their work didn't convince anyone." The Hortens became just one - Reimar - when Walter went back to Germany. Reimar stayed in Argentina and continue to make outrageous claims. The one thing that nobody denies is that it was that it handled very well and in prototype form, exceeded all expectations. The Go-229A was the ninth or tenth tailless design the Hortens produced and all of them worked. You can see plenty of tailless ultralight gliders, many more extreme than the Horten designs, flying today. None has fly by wire.
    3
  6.  @miklosernoehazy8678  The concept of stealth was unknown in WWII. The only means of defeating radar were terrain masking (low flying) and a British invention called Window, a primitive form of chaff. Further to that, the stealth claim for the Horten was reverse-engineered by Reimar Horten who made the claim after hearing about Northrop’s work on the B-2. He then went on to claim that they deliberately used a particular kind of glue because of its carbon content, whereas, in fact, that glue was simply poor quality glue that was a result of wartime production. The History Channel documentary about this is a load of rubbish. They ignore the fact that WWII vintage radars were in the 50-500 MHz band, whereas modern X-band radars are in the 8-11 GHz band. Furthermore, just being made of wood doesn’t make it automatically stealthy either. There were lots of metal components in the Horten jet.
    3
  7. "The tailess flying wing designs were just too hard to fly safely without modern (c1970s) flybywire computer assist." That is simply wrong. Tailless aircraft have been around for a long time.
    3
  8.  @peterharrell7305  "Radar doesn't identify wings, only the fuselage. That's why modern stealth planes are designed the way they are. We also have advanced coatings to mitigate radar perception, so they don't have to completely remove the fuselage. But it's still mostly formatted as a wing." I don't know where you got that idea from. Have a look at the angles used on stealth aircraft. They are all basically the same. If a wing is swept at 45 degrees, most of the other joins and edges will also be at 45 degrees. What happens is that if you happen to get the exact angle right, you will get a dandy return but the likelihood is extremely low and unlikely to last very long.
    3
  9. This jet was built from a radar absorbent material called conjecture.
    2
  10. Absolutely correct. This is reverse-engineered crap for consumption by people who don't know anything about radar.
    2
  11.  @Bluee95  'It was useless but I don't care because I think it's cool.' 'It was cool but it doesn't matter because it was useless.'
    2
  12.  @Bluee95  Agreed.
    2
  13. This is a claim that has its roots in the United States. There is next to no reliable evidence that Hitler had any interest in bombing New York. If he really wanted to do it, there were other means at his disposal. In other words, it's a grossly over-stated claim to make Americans feel more relevant and less guilty about those like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh.
    2
  14. Nothing like this.
    1
  15.  @RidinDirtyRollinBurnouts  Wrong. They would overheat and exceed their fatigue life. This was not even an issue after the R-15D-300.
    1
  16.  @DoubleMonoLR  It’s not.
    1
  17.  @dannypipewrench533  Because it didn’t happen.
    1
  18. "its funny to think about how innovative the Germans really were. they really pushed the boundaries in WWII." The Wunderwaffe weapons of WWII were more a hindrance than a help. The Nazis didn't listen to the army so they ended up with monster tanks they couldn't use. The jets were rushed into service before they were reliable enough and a lot of their on-paper ideas were echoed in the West anyway. "Its also interesting to know that they have had the smartest individuals working for them (willing or not) to create all what they have." Looked at critically - even by German historians such as Bernhard Kast and Chris Bergs - the idea of 'German genius' doesn't have much going for it. If you want to see this, have a look at their attempt to copy - I mean a complete replica - the De Havilland Mosquito and ask yourself why they couldn't do it.
    1
  19.  @danielmolinar8669  Looking carefully at that I’d say that technology was not a factor in winning WWII. WWII was won by ordinary people with mainstream conventional weapons and not with or by high technology. I think most people would agree that Germany had more high tech weapons than the Allies did yet the Allies prevailed with equipment that was good enough. Technology is either there or it isn’t. In the end, real wars are a battle of industrial economies.
    1
  20.  @annoyingbstard9407  Built by Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.
    1
  21. Clickbait (for Americans).
    1
  22.  AileDiablo  "At the time radar just came out. There is no way a 1945 radar can see it" No, no, no. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Sorry but this is reverse-engineered nonsense, made up by Reimar Horten to big note himself. Not even his brother Walter made any claim that their design was stealthy. I don't know where you got it from but it's wrong, Take it back and ask for a refund. Stealth is a modern concept that was unknown in WWII. There were only two ways to avoid radar in WWII: terrain masking - i.e.: low flying - or a British invention called window which was a primitive version of chaff. Just being made of wood is no guarantee of anything. Even if it had been made out of non-strategic materials, there was still a lot of metal in the Go-229A, including but not limited to the two jet engines, the internal bracing, the primary centre section, the landing gear and the cockpit. There was no provision for an internal bomb bay. The other thing is that stealth is designed to defeat modern X-band fighter radars in the 8-11GHz band. WWII radar was almost entirely in the 50-500 MHz range - mostly just VHF. It saw things completely differently. That history Channel documentary has a lot to answer for. Thanks to them, there is now and entire generation of people who thing the Germans developed stealth in WWII. There are even people who think the de Havilland Mosquito was stealthy. "If some each makes 4+ attacks a day against the Soviet or UK or North Africa they would definitely win or at least drives the war to talks." History shows that there is no such thing as a war-winning weapon. Even the atomic bomb was only the final nail in the coffin.
    1
  23.  @eobardthawne324  Can you show me a reliable, credible reference that backs up this claim? It’s another internet hoax. Read “The Other Battle” by Peter Hinchliffe. It describes the progress of electronic warfare in WWII. The nearest thing they had was a primitive farm of chaff called “Window”. If stealth had been a factor then RAF Mosquito pilots needn’t have flown at treetop height because hey, it was made if wood so it should be invisible, right?
    1
  24.  @eobardthawne324  And I said find me a reliable reference to back up your claim. There isn’t one. It’s a hoax.
    1
  25.  @eobardthawne324  You’re the one making the claim. The onus is on you. I have already provided a reference.
    1
  26.  @eobardthawne324  Source please!
    1
  27.  @eobardthawne324  Hardly convincing. Read the book I referred to.
    1
  28.  @eobardthawne324  I gave you and example of where the technology was at. It was limited to chaff. Shaping, coatings and materials were not explored until much later. We didn’t even see them until about 1980 with project “Have Blue”. Nobody questions that they knew a big aircraft had a bigger signature than a small one but there wasn’t much anyone could do about it. Read Peter Hibchliffe’s book.
    1
  29.  @eobardthawne324  Eobard, I’ve made it very clear what I think and I’ve given you a reference. You’re trying to persuade me with this argument that if someone had even thought about it then stealth was a concept and it just wasn’t. Chaff and low flying were the limit at the time. Those were the only measures anyone was using. I’m not really interested in continuing the tit-for-tat argument where you get to pick the eyes out without having a solid background to work from. When you’ve read Peter Hinchliffe’s book we can talk about it then.
    1
  30.  @eobardthawne324  Read the book, Eobard.
    1
  31.  @eobardthawne324  There’s a world of difference between chaff and other second tier measures and a first tier measure like stealth. Stealth was unknown in WWII. If you want to twist this for your own purposes to claim it did then so be it but you’re wrong.
    1
  32.  @eobardthawne324  No, that’s where you’re wrong. There was no attempt to reduce signature. The only attempts were to confuse the system. There was no shaping or coatings so no concept. If you don’t understand it, it seems really simple. Just read the book.
    1
  33.  @eobardthawne324  It’s simple when you don’t know. Sorry Eobard. You’re wrong and I’m sick of giving you a précis of accurate information. If you can’t be bothered reading the book and you’re only here to confirm your comfortable world view then you’re wasting your time and mine. It’s up to you if you want to graduate to Dunning-Kruger levels.
    1
  34. 8:40 It didn’t use a turbofan. It used a turbojet. The two are not interchangeable. Ask General Dynamics about the F-111.
    1
  35.  @ConcernedviolentVigilant-tj8ny  Has anyone ever told you how little your opinion matters?
    1
  36. 10:21 Andre Turcat (pron. Tur-Cah) was the first pilot to fly the Concorde. Shortly afterwards, British pilot Brian Trubshaw became the second. This was a quirk of the manufacturing process, where one was built in France and the other in Britain.
    1
  37.  @robertoroberto9798  They're basically the same thing.
    1
  38.  @Dbusdriver71  That's the trouble with capability-based planning. It ignores strategic requirements. There are many examples of aircraft with exceptional specifications which have been left on the drawing board or in the hangar because their cost didn't justify their use or because there was minimal need for it in the overall strategy. In the 1950s, manufacturers were constantly pushing the limits of aerodynamics, engine power and systems complexity. These things were - and are - expensive and demanding to develop. So if the mission and strategy is fuzzy, why continue to develop it? The spec sheet simply has no answer to this. If the aircraft didn't have a clearly defined role in its strategic planning then its future was always going to be under threat. Since there was never a bomber that was developed either from this or in the same vein. The FB-111 was probably the best example but, despite its problems, it was much cheaper and still a threat as late as the 1990s. The FB-111 was an example of how the range of an aircraft adds massive costs to the development of the aircraft. The British TSR2, even more so. The B-58 was bigger than either of them and extending the range of an aircraft like a B-58 would have been a major headache. The 1950s was an extremely fertile period in aeronautical engineering terms. You only have to look at some of the wacky ideas, very few of which were actually proceeded with. Again, this was frequently the result of an idea that didn't fit with the strategic objectives of the USAF. The B-52 did. The B-58 didn't. That's why one is still in service and the other isn't.
    1
  39.  @WhiteOwlOnFire_XXX  If it wasn’t useless, it would have lasted longer than it did.
    1
  40. 7:14 They weren’t ‘Russian’, they were ‘Soviet’. There’s a difference. Ask any Ukrainian. And the Tu-95 wasn’t supersonic.
    1
  41.  @stanleybuchan4610 He was THE first.
    1
  42. He means ‘exacerbated’.
    1
  43. Not to mention the tens of thousands of metal fasteners.
    1
  44. This was never any kind of reality. It's fantasy. The Horten Go-229 never flew in combat because the only one was destroyed in pre-production testing. The notion that the Germans could have just snapped their fingers and produced a bomber to attack New York is so far removed from reality, it wasn't even a pipe dream. This is much more an American fantasy than a German one (yes, I know you're Australian but you don't need to stroke their egos for them).
    1
  45. Stealth was unknown in the 1940s. This is reverse-engineered nonsense for fantasists, begging for clicks and ticks. The Go-229A was not a stealth design, either by intent or by accident. This is why you should be required to provide referencing. And since no reference will back you up, you should be required to remove it.
    1
  46. This jet could not change the outcome. History shows that wonder weapons don't win wars. There's always someone who says "If the Germans had had a fleet of Maus tanks, they would have won". Wrong. This was not going to make any difference. The flying wing is quite easy to make work. Have you never seen those flying wing hang gliders and ultralights? Flying wings are no more stealthy than any other type. That is a modern construct for gullible school kids who can't grade information.
    1
  47. Don't forget that the only thing they 'tested' was the shape and only with a modern X-band radar. They didn't include all the metal parts, such as panels, engines, undercarriage, internal structure or fasteners. WWII radar was nowhere near X-band, which is what modern stealth aircraft are optimised to defeat.
    1
  48. ⁠ @pbart9821 The design was originally called the Bristol Siddeley Olympus. It became the Rolle Royce SNECMA Olympus later.
    1
  49. I can’t believe how childish most of you are.
    1
  50. No, there are plenty of ways to build stability into flying wing designs. Have a look at a hang glider some time.
    1