Takom Wings 1/32 Ho 229A & B

[Mu17]

As a long-time Horten researcher, can I generally confirm PVANROY's  account of the development of the H.IX / Ho229.

As he stated, the Ho229.V6 single seater had a a centre section that had a completely new steel tube structure to allow the engines to be removed without having to first remove their ancilliaries - as on V3.  At the same time the engine thrustlines were significantly modified - the rear exhaust stayed at the same relative level to the top surface of the wing but the intake was much lower so its centreline was well below the centreline of the wing leading edge in front view - whereas on V3 the engine centreline was on the wing centreline. A large chunk of engine would have been exposed on the underside except the centre-section airfoil hwas made thicker but on the underside only.

 

Confusingly a Horton drawing of a two seater, derived from the single seat V6, was also called V6 !   The deeper underside was modelled reasonably well by Dragon (I can't remember if they got the engine thrustline right). When a formal proposal was made to the RLM for this two seater, Horten referred to it as the H.IXb.  The so called H.IXc with a large fin was a post-war proposal.

 

Hortens three-view of the two seat V6 / H.IXb is the ONLY drawing that exists and probably ever existed, of the two seater.  It does not seem to be sufficient internal space for any radar equipment.  I quite agree that had it been built as a nightfighter, then centimetric radar would have been used. Its possible to extrapolate from the Gotha P60 what an extended nose on the Horten would have looked like, although it was also likely to be destabilising and necessitate the addition of a fin or fins but we shall never know.

 

The two seat Ho229 as modelled by Takom and as far as I can see Zoukei Mura, represent the entirely fictional Ho229.V7 (sic) because they can use all of the internal structure of the single seat Ho229A / V3.  They are WAY OFF THE MARK as regards the true two seater because they fail to provide the new internal structure and the revised engine thrustline which completely changes the shape of the intakes.  The single seat V6 would not have had the open framework of V3 around the cockpit - it would have been an armoured tub simply bolted to the front of the mainspar and its highly likely the two seater would have done the same.

 

It is a great shame that two manufacturers should take such a short cut. Takom would have done better to make the true seater but without the costly internal structure - or even to have iussued their models in 1/35.    The 1/48 Dragon two seater remains the only reasonable kit of that variant.

Paul

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mu17]

I should have stated that Zoukei Muras V7 was the subject of their V3 conversion kit to make a two seater.  Their new two seat kits is correct in plan and generally in the shape of the intakes but as they have wrongly used the V3 internal structure, the frront of the engines are significantly too high. At the moment its difficult to judge how far the bulged underside has been 'lost'.

Paul

[Radub]

One thing to keep in mind is that the two-seat version of the Horten IX is totally fictional. It never existed. We simply do not know what a two-seat Horten would have looked like, had it made it past the drawing board. Literally, this is as imaginary as the type of hyperdrive used on the Millennium Falcon. 

The only known drawing of the two-seat Horten IX was drawn by Horten. It is very basic. This was the basis of the Dragon 1/48 kit and ZM 1/32 kit. By the way, the intakes are exactly where the Horten brothers put them in their own drawing. 

The single-seat V6 gets mentioned a lot as a basis of the two-seater. The existing drawings of the redesigned single -seat V6 were drawn by Gotha when they took over production. We do not know what a Gotha-redesigned two-seat aircraft would have looked like. No such drawings, if they existed, were ever found. There are a lot of suppositions and flights of imagination. Nothing wrong with that. But it would be silly to argue that "my supposition is better than your supposition". 

Radu

[CRAZY IVAN5]

21 hours ago, Radub said:

One thing to keep in mind is that the two-seat version of the Horten IX is totally fictional. It never existed. We simply do not know what a two-seat Horten would have looked like, had it made it past the drawing board. Literally, this is as imaginary as the type of hyperdrive used on the Millennium Falcon. 

The only known drawing of the two-seat Horten IX was drawn by Horten. It is very basic. This was the basis of the Dragon 1/48 kit and ZM 1/32 kit. By the way, the intakes are exactly where the Horten brothers put them in their own drawing. 

The single-seat V6 gets mentioned a lot as a basis of the two-seater. The existing drawings of the redesigned single -seat V6 were drawn by Gotha when they took over production. We do not know what a Gotha-redesigned two-seat aircraft would have looked like. No such drawings, if they existed, were ever found. There are a lot of suppositions and flights of imagination. Nothing wrong with that. But it would be silly to argue that "my supposition is better than your supposition". 

Radu

Well said kind sir ,well said indeed ! i'll just go with the new tool Z-M 2 seater and everybody can call me a heretic. oh well! 

[BloorwestSiR]

I got an update from Andy's Canada yesterday that my order is finally in and shipping to me. So I may end up with it after all. 

[Martinnfb]

And I cancelled my. Will go with ZM single seater instead.  The main reasons are,: enormous response time from AHQ-Canada and a pictures of a build up kit, where the intakes are so off the mark, it hurts. 

In other words ... 

 

Edited May 25 by Martinnfb

[AngryJazz_Models]

I got my dual boxing of the Takom kits a month ago - looks like a very nice kit! 

 

I just love the look of the HO-229. Something about the futuristic look they managed to achieve... I have the ZM 1 seater in both 1/48 and 1/32 also.

Plan is to build the Takom B version this year 😉

[BloorwestSiR]

I got the boxes set today. So I can now start to figure out how to navalize the 2 seater. @Martinnfb and I have been throwing some ideas around. 

 

But first I need to finish the Spitfire PR IV. 

 

Carl

[Mu17]

Radub is correct to say that only one drawing of the two seat H.IXb / Ho229 two seater exists. He is also correct to say that as built, changes might have been made.

However, as someone who has a complete set of all the V3 and V6 (single seater)  drawings, I can say a couple of things with reasonable certainly.

 

The engine installation on V3 was unacceptable because the engine ancilliaries had to be dismantled before the engine could be removed.

For that reason, the steel tube structure of the centre section (for V6) was completely redesigned to make life easier AND at the same time the engine thrustline was significantly altered, lowering the intake relative to the leading edge. The bulged underside provided more internal space.

 

Changing the engine thrustline clearly wasn't done for maintenance reasons and is a fundamental change. It was unlikely to be changed back for the two seater.

Nor was Gotha likely to revert to the structure of V3 that made the engine installation unacceptable.

Likewise, the new armoured sheet cockpit tub introduced was likely to be copied and made longer on the two seater., pargtly because it helped correct the CG problem.

 

Of course I do not have all the answers but is pretty clear that the two seater would have been close to the Hortens drawing and nothing like Takoms model.

If the aircraft HAD been built as a radar equipped nightfighter, it would probably have had centimetric radar and that would have meant a bulged nose like on the Gotha P.60 as there simply isn't the necessary internal space. In turn that nose would have destabilised the already minimal directional stability, requiring a fin or fins to compensate.

Sadly we have no information on what might have been fitted but structurally a pair of fins at the wing to centre sectiuon joint looks the most probable.

 

Its fair to say that information is limited to one three view but when you look at the drawings and development history, the layout is a 'KNOWN' rather than a fantasy.

There is absolutely zero evidence for Takoms version and loads of evidence against it.

To add more fun, its documented that the V6 single seater would have flown with a Trafficator drag rudder - a bar mounted on the rear of the mainspar , that slid spanwise outboard - leaving an open slot behind it.  This was tested on the H.VII twin engined lightplane and proved to be successful.

 

I have no problems with fantasy models if thats your thing - but if you want an Ho229 two seater as accurate as the existing evidence allows, this ain't it. 

Equally as annoyed that Zoukei Mura are fudging it too.

Paul

[Gary Needham]

So in essence Paul and to summarize by your informed understanding of the subject and enjoyable explanation, neither kit represents accurately what is, in effect, a complete 'what if' project and model company best guess assessment. In many ways it is as futile a serious debate or assessment for model building purposes as arguing 'what if' German Army Panzer 1946 camo colours or AFV projects. As you say, only the single seat version actually exists in any meaningful format to invite critical assessment against a model kit.

 

Both the Takom and ZM kits will satisfy most modelers who simply want a superbly detailed nice fitting kit and a subject platform that will allow them to have a free camo palette just like 'fantasy' painters have with fantasy model figures i.e. you can't be wrong within (reasonable) camo parameters.

 

Thanks for the explanation of a little known subject and I will happily build my (cheap as chips!) Takom 2 seat 'night fighter' kit in the full knowledge that it has as much accuracy and reality as a Star Wars 'AT-AT' or 'X-Wing' model kit.

 

Gary

[Mu17]

Hi Gary,  I quite appreciate what you are saying.

Lets be fair though - the Takom two seater is just a copy of a three view drawing that someone invented in the 1960's/70's and called the V7. 

It really isn't a kit manufacturers best guess at all and ignores the one genuine drawing that does exist. Why go down that road ?

 

I disagree the debate is a futile arguement. The mainplanes are effectively the same. The new structure is known. On the V6 single seater the cockpit tub is simply bolted to the front of the mainspar and (yes an asumption) the two seater tub would be similar. The shape of the extended nose is known, as is the shape of the intakes and the bulged underside. So its hardly a bundle of unknowns.

 

Dragons 1/48 two seater was virtually correct, so if they can do it, anyone can.  

 

I agree a lot of modellers don't bother about the accuracy of what they build but many do - so why deter part of your potential market ?.   

 

I must say that I was shocked to see Zoukei Mura - renown for their accuracy, distort the two seater to save on costs - its a bit like making an Me262 with flat sides to the fuselage, just to make like easier for the manufacturer.  When has that ever been acceptable ?

 

The production of two inccurate kits, means that the prospects of a third, accurate one are close to zero - sad.

 

Anyhow - I have said my piece (at great length 😀 )and hopefully informed some folk about the history of this radical aircraft, so they can make an informed choice.

 

Paul

 

 

 

 

 

[dutik]

On 5/24/2025 at 12:51 AM, Mu17 said:

Hortens three-view of the two seat V6 / H.IXb is the ONLY drawing that exists and probably ever existed, of the two seater.  It does not seem to be sufficient internal space for any radar equipment.  I quite agree that had it been built as a nightfighter, then centimetric radar would have been used. Its possible to extrapolate from the Gotha P60 what an extended nose on the Horten would have looked like, although it was also likely to be destabilising and necessitate the addition of a fin or fins but we shall never know.

 

Paul

 

Gotha P60? Here:

 

 

 

Regards

- dutik

[BloorwestSiR]

7 hours ago, dutik said:

 

Gotha P60? Here:

 

 

 

Regards

- dutik

That's not too far off the nose I grafted onto my whiffer. I used a P-51 drop tank. 

 

 

Carl