I have always suspected that one of the main reasons the yb-49's were scrapped is their stealth characteristics and the concern that it had virtually no radar return! Not the kind of technology to have floating about in that era.
True history, e-mail, 09.06.2012 19:45
Johannes Trautloft
The XB49 was preeceeded by the X/YB35 (designed from 1942 - preceeding the Horten). These US planes are vastly different in performance, size, construction & purpose, being faster, longer-ranged, almost x10 the weigth, carrying a huge bombload, having more engines and crew. To draw any parallel with the crude little steel-tube and wooden Horten fighter-bomber prototype is ridiculous. As is any mention of the B2 and stealth.
The Horten 229/IX did not have a proper testing program. One prototype flew as a glider version (briefly, it underwent significant modification during the 8mths it flew). Only the 2nd prototype flew under power (for 1.5hrs) before being destroyed & killing its pilot.
A TV program showed testing of a perfectly made Horten (far from likely in 1945 Germany for a start) giving a 20% reduced detection range over a Messerschmitt 109. Not especially stealthy at all.
The Northrop X/YB 35/49 (like Jack Northrop's earlier flying wings) are the B2's ancestors.
TERRENCE O'NEILL, e-mail, 29.05.2012 20:35
I revised GM,DS! into "GOODBYE BEAUTIFUL WING", by deleting an irrelevant chapter and by adding Author's Notes at the start of each chapter, to explain it and what was going on in the world at the time... and added more facts from the records. This book is a perfect example showing us exactly HOW the corrupt military-political-inductrial 'complex' wastes billions of the People's hard earned dollars on useless hardware, trashes technical breakthroughs, endangers the country and invites wars that kill our young people... and implies what has to be done to stop it. Read Goodbye Beautiful Wing.
Johannes Trautloft, e-mail, 10.04.2012 03:55
Yes, the B-49 was an interesting plane for its time, however the Horten HO-229 flying wing preceded it by a number of years. Also called the GO-229, after its primary manufacturer, the Gothawerk, the manufacture of this early stealthy aircraft was personally given the ok by Reichsfeldmarschall and Luftwaffe commanding officer Hermann Goering. It is reported that during the testing program, a Horten test pilot out flew an ME-262 pilot. Recently a full scale model of the Horten was built, bombarded with WWII radar, and it was found to be quite stealthy. Was it designed as such? It appears we'll never know.
Scott Dillinger, e-mail, 17.11.2011 03:43
Can I add another probable reason for its cancelation. The Early Atomic bombs could not fit inside its bombay, let alone some of the monsster size H-bombs then on the drawing boards. The B-36 could carry them. Also the flying wing had good high altitude performance, lets recall the featherweight B-36s could be over the target at over 50000ft. Still quite a loss, the flying wing was just ahead of its time
Terrence O'Neill, e-mail, 20.10.2011 18:26
Additional to my notes above, the Wing airframe (identical for prop or jet version) had much lower wing loading, and much higher power loading than the bloated, overweight-36. it's great advantage as a bomber needing to get form the US tot he USSR Ural Mountains war plants was that the Wing could fly two miles higher than the B-36, turn inside a MiG-15 and serve as a long range escort fighter, all invisible to the nine USSR radar rings and the 19,000 USSR fighters. The lumbering B-36s would have been blasted at the border.
Paul Willson, e-mail, 11.10.2011 01:08
I heard that Mr Northrop just before he died was taken to EdwardAFB and allowed to watch the B 2 fly. The problem with the flying wings was that they were too different from what pople were used to seeing. And the thecnology that manages engines , surface contols was years away. Otherwisae theYB 49 would have been operational maybe even today, look at the B 52.
KJ_Lesnick, e-mail, 10.01.2011 07:44
To Greg Hightower,
What would have happened if Patton was listened to? Why was he not listened to?
Gregory J. Hightower Sr., e-mail, 26.11.2010 06:13
From all the comments I have read here, politics continue to rear its ugly head. Politics is the sole reason we had the cold war for many years when we should have done what Gen Patton suggested. Gen MacArthur should have continued his plans for the Korean peninsula, possibly North Korea would not be a issue today. This aircraft given the chance would have been an excellent deterrent and who knows how much further a leap would be today. Politics and politicians need to stay out of military affairs and concentrate on national concerns if they could do that but its unfortunate they cannot even agree on something as simple as looking out for the common man.
Duane Chism, e-mail, 21.10.2010 23:27
When serving in the Pentagon, I had several opportunities to visit the Smithsonian's Silver Hill facility, where a lot of the planes that would never be publicly displayed, were stored. One of the docents -- a retired military pilot -- said the real reason the wings were destroyed was because of the fact they found out they didn't show up on radar. We were afraid the Soviets would copy our wings, and they would have a strategic platform from which to bomb us with impunity. If we put out the word the wings weren't stable, and could not be made stable, and destroyed all of our experimental fleet,they wouldn't copy them. So, we destroyed all of the wings. Only one survived, a tiny one-man wing with a span of about 25 feet. It was stored in a building somewhere, had a tarp over it and it was missed when they went out wing-whacking search-and-destroy missions. It is in the Air and Space Museum.
Hal Strack, 31.08.2010 03:12
It is my understanding that the aircraft did yaw excessively early on, and was not a suitable bombing platform at the time. But it would probably have been an excellent reconnaissance vehicle, better than either the B-36 0r B-45. Gen. Bob Cardenas, who flew the second B-49 to Washington, allegedly impressing President Truman, said that the aircraft was airworthy. Later developments would have made it a safe bet to correct the inherrent directional stability deficiencies, as was much later done and proven with the B-2 flying wing. I suspect that it is true that Secretary Stuart Symington, biased in favor of the Texas based Consolidated builder of the B-36, for political reasons vindictively caused all of the airframes to be demolished, depriving us of having benefit of the advantages inherent in the design for many years. What a shame. Is it any wonder that politicians are loathed?
Tracy Cooper, e-mail, 17.08.2010 12:32
According to my Grandfather who worked for Northrop at the time, they could have made all of the planes, but Mr. Northrop was told he either licence the manufacture to Consolidated or the project would be cancelled. Mr. Northrop refused the licensing demand, so with complete malice the airforce had every last plane destroyed. Not one plane was spared for posterity, and airforce animosity towards Northrup continued into the 1970s and the YF-16/YF-17 trials. It's not suprising Consolidated became Convair, which was bought by General Dynamics the maker of the F-16.
ROY CUMMINGS, e-mail, 18.01.2010 05:23
AS A STUDENT AT NORTHROP AERO INSTITUTE IN 1948-9, I SAW BOTH THE B-35 AND THE B-49 FLY WITH MAX STANLEY AT THE CONTROLS. IN A PASS ACROSS THE HAWTHORNE AIRPORT THE 49) ACCOMPANIED BY TWO F-80'S ) CONSISTENTLY TURNED INSIDE THE FIGHTERS. STANLEY PUT THE WING UP ON EDGE AND CAME BACK ACROSS THE FIELD WAY AHEAD OF THE OUTCLASSED LOCKHEEDS. I LATER SAW THE TRAGIC DEMISE OF THE WINGS ( SOME COMPLETE AND SOME STILL UNFINISHED ) AS THE COMPANY WAS FORCED TO DROP A STEEL PLATE AND GUILLETINE ALL OF THEM JUST TO KEEP JKN FROM PROVING THEIR WORTH. SEC WAR WILSON ( EX-CONVAIR VP) AND STUART SYMINGTON MADE SURE THAT CONVAIR HAD NO COMPETITION. WHAT A SHAME
paul scott, e-mail, 26.08.2009 01:50
An amazing aircraft, just like the Valkyrie, Convair Hustler and the Avro Vulcan, shame it never went further. Imagine seeing something like this in the skies. Wing? Boomerang? Banana? Who cares, it was unique! Glad we got a good glimpse of it as if it were 'in service' in 'The War of the Worlds' film.
Jim Evans, e-mail, 02.07.2008 04:56
The loss of the YB-49 in a midair breakup deprived the Air Force of stealth technology some forty years ahead of its time, but it gave two U. S. Air Force bases their namesakes: Edwards AFB (the old Muroc field) in California for the copilot Capt Glen Edwards and Forbes AFB (the old Topeka AAF) for the pilot Maj Daniel Forbes.
Terrence O'Neill, e-mail, 22.05.2008 16:48
Read my new book: "GM,DS! A Billion Dollar Bluinder". From government microfilmed records of the R&D projects of the -35 and the -36, an airplane designer can see the greatly superior performance of the YB-49, even when saddled with the inefficient 'stove-pipe' J-35s instead of the newer J-47s the Boeign B-47, its competition as a 2000-mile-target bomber. But the m ajor difference is what Charles Tucker relates, that it was stealthy in 1948! He was on board on flights requested by GCI radar around San Francisco, and repeatedly made invisible passes, though the radar picked up other aircraft. The AF Generals chose to ignore this breakthrough. Tucker flew the Wing through all the AF-required stall tests, after the No. 2 -49 had crashed, when Forbes pulled the wigns off at 4.8Gs. (There was no G-meter, and he started too low for a gradual pull-out.) Tucker sinsists the Wing was rock-solid and an excellent airplane, coudl turn-inside a P-80, had flown 520-mph, and landed half as fast as its competition, the 1500-mile-target Boeing B-47.
Terrence O'Neill, e-mail, 22.05.2008 16:48
Read my new book: "GM,DS! A Billion Dollar Bluinder". From government microfilmed records of the R&D projects of the -35 and the -36, an airplane designer can see the greatly superior performance of the YB-49, even when saddled with the inefficient 'stove-pipe' J-35s instead of the newer J-47s the Boeign B-47, its competition as a 2000-mile-target bomber. But the m ajor difference is what Charles Tucker relates, that it was stealthy in 1948! He was on board on flights requested by GCI radar around San Francisco, and repeatedly made invisible passes, though the radar picked up other aircraft. The AF Generals chose to ignore this breakthrough. Tucker flew the Wing through all the AF-required stall tests, after the No. 2 -49 had crashed, when Forbes pulled the wigns off at 4.8Gs. (There was no G-meter, and he started too low for a gradual pull-out.) Tucker sinsists the Wing was rock-solid and an excellent airplane, coudl turn-inside a P-80, had flown 520-mph, and landed half as fast as its competition, the 1500-mile-target Boeing B-47.
Dr Lyle G McNeal, e-mail, 19.05.2008 00:54
My father as an executive with Northrop Aircraft and employee for from day 1 when Jack Northrop founded this unique corporation and had great involvement with all of the Northrop flying wings, the piston -35 and the jet -49. I saw both of these take their maiden flights and was totally impressed. I also remember my father discussing with me the negative contractual politics and how they kept losing to Convair and the B-36 'white elephant' bomber. As a pilot myself, I was sensitive to what I understand about the flying issues, but minor in contrast to the poorly designed and performed Convair B-36. The sad part of this commentary is that the D.C. politics hasn't change much.....just look at the European Airbus federal contract!
Iron Mountain Man, e-mail, 22.01.2008 00:00
Please see my lengthy post on the XB-35.
The September 1950 issue of National Geographic magazine has a quote from an engineering test pilot stating that the yaw problem with the YB-49 was solved by adding two gyroscopes taken from salvaged Boeing B-29s. The two other gyroscopes were slaved to the master 'gyro and the yaw problem vanished completely. The jet YB-49 had even LESS radar cross section than its piston powered ancestor.
paul panozzo, e-mail, 09.01.2008 05:53
TRULY A AIRCRAFT ADHEAD OF ITS TIME.GRANDADDY OF THE B2 AND F117A.REASON WHY THE USAF DID NOT PROCURE THIS AIRPLANE WAS THAT IT HAD A HABIT OF YAWING DURING A BOMB RUN.
alan vintiner, e-mail, 12.04.2007 16:08
I first saw this aircraft on the original version of war of the worlds, it dropped an atomic bomb on the martins and I thought then that it was a great plane. Interesting to see a similar shape in the stelth bombers.
If you want to send an email just replace '(@)' in the address with '@' !
