4
$\begingroup$

On February 18, 1945 the German Horten Ho 229 crashed due to an engine failure and I was wondering if the failure was caused because of the planes irregular shape or some other external factor. I will also accept plausible theories as an answer.

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

7
$\begingroup$

The little what is known is that one engine cut out and the plane went into a spiral dive from which it could not be recovered. This happened at low altitude so the ejection seat could not save the pilot (and was not activated, as far as I know).

Since Reimar Horten insisted on only a wing and not even adding a vertical tail to his designs, the lateral stability was marginal and control authority only provided by drag devices at the wingtips. Those looked like miniature airbrakes in the Go-229 and comprised a small and a larger brake, which worked well at high speed. At low speed, however, this drag is comparatively low, so control authority suffers.

Heinz Scheidhauer, who had flown all Horten glider designs, once told me that at higher speed, without the help of induced drag on the swept wing, the Horten gliders would "swim", meaning they yawed left and right when hit by gusts. You had to get used to this - eventually the yawing motion would die down in calm air.

In my opinion, the asymmetric thrust could not be compensated by the pilot with the little control authority he had at his disposal. Only the addition of a vertical tail and a rudder could had avoided that accident. Not adding this has made the Go-229 a deathtrap.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

the Horten Ho 229 crashed due to an engine failure and I was wondering if the failure was caused because of the planes irregular shape or some other external factor.

Without a post-flight report it's hard to give an answer. Anyway everything points to an inherent problem at the engine itself not directly related to the plane's shape or some other external factor (source Wikipedia):

"It was not until early 1944 that full production could finally begin... Given the lower-quality steels used in the 004B, these engines had a service life of only 10–25 hours, perhaps twice this in the hands of a careful pilot. Another shortcoming of the engine, common to all early turbojets, was its sluggish throttle response. Worse, too much fuel could be injected into the combustion chambers by moving the throttle too quickly, causing the temperature to rise too far before the airflow increased to match the increased fuel. This overheated the turbine blades, and was a major cause for engine failures... Completed engines earned a reputation for unreliability; the time between major overhauls was thirty to fifty hours, and may have been as low as ten... The process involved replacing compressor blades, (which suffered the most damage, usually from ingesting stones and such, later known as fodding) and turbine blades damaged by the high thermodynamic loads"

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .