Takom Wings 1/32 Ho 229A & B

[AngryJazz_Models]

The latest Takom releases have been very affordable. I payed about 32€ for the latest 1/35 Tiger 1 kit with 20 sprues and metal barrel etc. That's a bargain compared to some other manufacturers.
Would not be surprised to see their big box priced about 99-129€ (2 kits + 1/16 figure).

Their first subject may not appeal to all, but im happy they are taking a chance with a larger 2 engine model. Most companies tend to release a smaler 1 engine fighter as their first. 

I have the ZM HO229 in both 1/32 and 1/48 but im excited to get this new release also! 

[pvanroy]

17 hours ago, CRAZY IVAN5 said:

I'm curious as to how you made this determination seeing as the B was fictitious for the most part? Understand I am NOT saying you're full of it or wrong, just curious how you came to this conclusion. if ya wanna split hairs with -109s and -190s I 'm with ya brother 'cuz you are a very knowledgeable person I know this for a fact, but I need something more to go on with a plane that BARELY existed. 

 

Not quite sure what you mean by "fictitious for the most part"? The Horten brothers did design a twin seat version of the aircraft (which they designated as the H. IX V6), there are original Horten drawings of it preserved. While the twin seater did not get built due to the end of the war, the Hortens did convert one of their H.III sailplanes into an aerodynamic mock-up with the extended mid-section and dummy intakes and dummy jet engines to evaluate the low-speed handling of the design. There are multiple photographs of this converted H.III gilder. So, while the two-seater was not built, it was a very real design, and we do know what it was supposed to look like. Hence, it is totally possible to comment on accuracy. And, so far, the only accurate model of the two seater is the 1/48 kit by Dragon.

 

I suppose some confusion may stem from the different designations that were is use for the same aircraft, and the re-use of the V6 number to refer to two different iteration of the same basic design. In short, the Horten brothers started design of a single-seat, twin jet engine flying wing fighter bomber as a private venture with the in-house designation of Horten H. IX.

 

The first prototype they built, the H. IX V1, was executed as a glider for low-speed testing. This machine was destroyed at the end of the war; after testing, it was proposed to be used to re-train Me 163 pilots of JG 400 on the Ho 229.

 

The second prototype, the H. IX V2, was equipped with two Jumo 004 jet engines. After having accumulated some two flight hours, it was destroyed in a crash when the engines flamed out during landing, killing the test pilot Erwin Ziller. Ziller had probably been rendered unconscious by CO inhalation - there was no separation between the cockpit and the engines in the V2.

 

The Hortens then designed the H. IX V3 incorporating a significant number of changes, and which they intended to be the production prototype for the fighter bomber. At this point, they received official backing and an order for their design, which received the official number 8-229, so from that point onward the official designation of the aircraft became Horten Ho 229. Because the Hortens lacked both the capacity and experience to start production of the aircraft, Gotha was selected to further develop and build the Ho 229. Gotha engineers made major design changes to the center section, both to rectify numerous faults of the original Horten design, and to simplify production. However, to expedite matters, it was decided to move forward with the construction of three prototypes following the original design of the V3 - the were the Horten Ho 229 V3, V4 and V5. At the end of the war, the V3 was almost finished, the V4 was about 45 percent complete, and the V5 about 15 percent. The three machines under construction were captured by the Americans - the V3 is currently under restauration at the NASM, while the partially built V4 and V5 were scrapped. 

 

As mentioned higher, Gotha engineers had embarked on a major redesign of the center section, which they intended to implement in the Ho 229 V6, which was to be the production pattern for the planned A-series. Among other changes, the engines of the V6 were mounted slightly further outboard and parallel to each other (previous machines had the engines slanted slightly inward); the cockpit was surrounded by a massive armor steel bath-tub, with the triple aim to provide pilot protection, create a separation between the cockpit and the engines, and to correct the CG which was to far aft on the original Horten design; larger wheels and tires for the undercarriage; and a deeper center section with a flat underside, eliminating the bulges for the landing gear on the earlier designs. The V6 was originally intended to become the first aircraft to be armed, but it was found that not enough space was left for the guns in the center section due to the engines being positioned farther outboard. One solution was to place the engines in the wings, but this would have meant reducing the capacity of the fuel tanks, which was considered undesirable. So, it was decided to build the V6 without weapons pending a satisfactory solution to this problem. In the event, the war ended before any metal was cut on the V6, or any of the series aircraft that were to be based on it.

 

The Horten brother then took this revised Gotha design for the single seater, and extended the nose forward to accommodate a second crew member. The nose extension was pointed, and had oval intakes flush with the leading edge. Even though the V6 designation was already being used by Gotha for their planned production prototype of the single seater, the Hortens nevertheless re-used it, designating their twin seater as H. IX V6. This double use of V6 has caused a lot of confusion in the later literature. Because the Hortens did not have access to a wind tunnel, they modified one of their H. III gliders with an extended pointy nose and mock engines and engine ducts, to check the aerodynamic characteristics of the design. This glider was flown without issues, but the end of the war stopped all further development. 

 

So, the twin seater was a real design, and we do know what it was supposed to look like. So far, only Dragon have done a correct model in 1/48 of the twin seater as actually designed by the Hortens. On the other hand, the twin seater as provided by ZM, Takom, and PM (in 1/72) is based on some totally incorrect post-war drawings. I'm not sure where these drawings originated, but they seem to date back to the 70's or early 80's, which leads me to suspect David Myhra as the likely culprit. 

 

And, to round out the story, and complicate matters a bit further: near the very end of the war, Walter Horten, with little or no participation from his brother Reimar, designed another heavy twin-jet fighter-bomber in the same class as the Ho 229. This aicraft had a big vertical fin with the cockpit faired into the base, angular wingtips, and the jet engines mounted in pods under the wing. This was an entirely new design which was intended to address some of the several shortcomings of the original H. IX/Ho 229 design. However, probably because it was an aircraft in the same class, the Hortens designated it as the Horten H. IXb, even though structurally, it had nothing in common with their original H. IX.

[blackbetty]

i´ll never get the policy of kitmakers

[geedubelyer]

Does anyone know whether this subject was a success for ZM (or any other manufacturers who have released it for that matter)?

 

I'm fascinated by the choice.

With all of aviation history at their fingertips, factual or fictional, they chose exactly the same aircraft as another kit manufacturer. 

 

Are they hoping to gain sales from the prominence of the ZM kit?

 

I am super happy for those modellers who have an interest in this aircraft type but I have to admit I am also a little bewildered......

[Radub]

Have a look at this video from the IPMS USA nationals in Madison. Go to the 38.49 mark. This is what pvanroy was talking about.

I showed this to BigTimm when we met there  (at the 38.05 mark you can see my back in the red shirt).

Radu

Edited November 29, 2024 by Radub

[Wayne Bull]

It certainly is not the what you would expect for a first relese . You really do wonder if this is a big missed opertunity for the start of a new range . But we have been talking about for 5 pages so it is some sort of win for them 

[pvanroy]

48 minutes ago, Radub said:

Have a look at this video from the IPMS USA nationals in Madison. Go to the 38.49 mark. This is what pvanroy was talking about.

I showed this to BigTimm when we met there  (at the 38.05 mark you can see my back in the red shirt).

Radu

 

Oh wow! Does this mean that ZM are going to release a correct two seater in the future? Then, if they just tool an additional single seater nose, they could also release the planned production model! Thanks for showing this!

Edited November 29, 2024 by pvanroy

[Violator1991]

I could make about a hundred guesses but still would fail to nail it! Manufacturers have their own way of thinking and it is obviously different than mine.

Takom getting into LSP business was exciting but short lived news, for me at least. Hope they do not step out soon and keep on bringing 1/32 aircraft, at least with a quick glance first at the wishlists the community tirelessly produces whenever they consider a new investment.  

 

 

[CRAZY IVAN5]

2 hours ago, pvanroy said:

 

Not quite sure what you mean by "fictitious for the most part"? The Horten brothers did design a twin seat version of the aircraft (which they designated as the H. IX V6), there are original Horten drawings of it preserved. While the twin seater did not get built due to the end of the war, the Hortens did convert one of their H.III sailplanes into an aerodynamic mock-up with the extended mid-section and dummy intakes and dummy jet engines to evaluate the low-speed handling of the design. There are multiple photographs of this converted H.III gilder. So, while the two-seater was not built, it was a very real design, and we do know what it was supposed to look like. Hence, it is totally possible to comment on accuracy. And, so far, the only accurate model of the two seater is the 1/48 kit by Dragon.

 

I suppose some confusion may stem from the different designations that were is use for the same aircraft, and the re-use of the V6 number to refer to two different iteration of the same basic design. In short, the Horten brothers started design of a single-seat, twin jet engine flying wing fighter bomber as a private venture with the in-house designation of Horten H. IX.

 

The first prototype they built, the H. IX V1, was executed as a glider for low-speed testing. This machine was destroyed at the end of the war; after testing, it was proposed to be used to re-train Me 163 pilots of JG 400 on the Ho 229.

 

The second prototype, the H. IX V2, was equipped with two Jumo 004 jet engines. After having accumulated some two flight hours, it was destroyed in a crash when the engines flamed out during landing, killing the test pilot Erwin Ziller. Ziller had probably been rendered unconscious by CO inhalation - there was no separation between the cockpit and the engines in the V2.

 

The Hortens then designed the H. IX V3 incorporating a significant number of changes, and which they intended to be the production prototype for the fighter bomber. At this point, they received official backing and an order for their design, which received the official number 8-229, so from that point onward the official designation of the aircraft became Horten Ho 229. Because the Hortens lacked both the capacity and experience to start production of the aircraft, Gotha was selected to further develop and build the Ho 229. Gotha engineers made major design changes to the center section, both to rectify numerous faults of the original Horten design, and to simplify production. However, to expedite matters, it was decided to move forward with the construction of three prototypes following the original design of the V3 - the were the Horten Ho 229 V3, V4 and V5. At the end of the war, the V3 was almost finished, the V4 was about 45 percent complete, and the V5 about 15 percent. The three machines under construction were captured by the Americans - the V3 is currently under restauration at the NASM, while the partially built V4 and V5 were scrapped. 

 

As mentioned higher, Gotha engineers had embarked on a major redesign of the center section, which they intended to implement in the Ho 229 V6, which was to be the production pattern for the planned A-series. Among other changes, the engines of the V6 were mounted slightly further outboard and parallel to each other (previous machines had the engines slanted slightly inward); the cockpit was surrounded by a massive armor steel bath-tub, with the triple aim to provide pilot protection, create a separation between the cockpit and the engines, and to correct the CG which was to far aft on the original Horten design; larger wheels and tires for the undercarriage; and a deeper center section with a flat underside, eliminating the bulges for the landing gear on the earlier designs. The V6 was originally intended to become the first aircraft to be armed, but it was found that not enough space was left for the guns in the center section due to the engines being positioned farther outboard. One solution was to place the engines in the wings, but this would have meant reducing the capacity of the fuel tanks, which was considered undesirable. So, it was decided to build the V6 without weapons pending a satisfactory solution to this problem. In the event, the war ended before any metal was cut on the V6, or any of the series aircraft that were to be based on it.

 

The Horten brother then took this revised Gotha design for the single seater, and extended the nose forward to accommodate a second crew member. The nose extension was pointed, and had oval intakes flush with the leading edge. Even though the V6 designation was already being used by Gotha for their planned production prototype of the single seater, the Hortens nevertheless re-used it, designating their twin seater as H. IX V6. This double use of V6 has caused a lot of confusion in the later literature. Because the Hortens did not have access to a wind tunnel, they modified one of their H. III gliders with an extended pointy nose and mock engines and engine ducts, to check the aerodynamic characteristics of the design. This glider was flown without issues, but the end of the war stopped all further development. 

 

So, the twin seater was a real design, and we do know what it was supposed to look like. So far, only Dragon have done a correct model in 1/48 of the twin seater as actually designed by the Hortens. On the other hand, the twin seater as provided by ZM, Takom, and PM (in 1/72) is based on some totally incorrect post-war drawings. I'm not sure where these drawings originated, but they seem to date back to the 70's or early 80's, which leads me to suspect David Myhra as the likely culprit. 

 

And, to round out the story, and complicate matters a bit further: near the very end of the war, Walter Horten, with little or no participation from his brother Reimar, designed another heavy twin-jet fighter-bomber in the same class as the Ho 229. This aicraft had a big vertical fin with the cockpit faired into the base, angular wingtips, and the jet engines mounted in pods under the wing. This was an entirely new design which was intended to address some of the several shortcomings of the original H. IX/Ho 229 design. However, probably because it was an aircraft in the same class, the Hortens designated it as the Horten H. IXb, even though structurally, it had nothing in common with their original H. IX.

I thankyou very much kind sir, for the clarifying things for me and I WAS very confused about the designations. I kinda figured you had something backing you up ,just needed some explaining.

[Radub]

The ZM forthcoming model is based on an official Horten drawing dated 9 February 1945. It does not specify any V-number. This is the same drawing that was used by Dragon for their 1/48 kit. It is an official Horten design and it is not linked to the Gotha-designed V6.

I spoke to Arthur very many times about the V6 single-seat day-fighter. He has a lot of info about it. His drawings of this V6 were published in the Classic Publications book and one can immediately see that it is significantly different from the V3 (the aicraft preserved at the NASM), nothing between the wings is the same. However, the V6 did not exist beyond the drawing board and even so the very few official drawings that still survive indicate that it changed many times. 

Radu   

 

Edited December 2, 2024 by Radub

[CRAZY IVAN5]

21 hours ago, VMA131Marine said:

Maybe they’ll even things out and do the Supermarine Spiteful/Seafang next  …

Very funny. I'm turning the internet upside down and inside out trying to get info  on Spitefuls and Seafangs ! There's not much out there and there were several that actually flew. Crazy world we live in tho yeah?

[CRAZY IVAN5]

On 11/28/2024 at 7:37 PM, Artful69 said:

 

Exactly my reaction ...

 

If you're going to kick your brand off, you want something that is going to be at least a balance between popularity and availability in the current market. The only reason I bought the ZM one is because it's part of the collection and I had the spare change at the time ...

 

Compare Kōtare who smashed it out of the park with an early Spitfire (something that has been grossly lacking in an accurately done, modern tooled version) ... Yes they're a little expensive for the parts count - but the finalised product isn't just satisfactory, it's an amazing finish - largely due to the well thought out engineering on the parts assembly!

 

If Takom's first kit was a Beau or a MiG.21 (I can't think of a good or recent representation) or ... wait for it ... an F9F in 1/32 ... and in the same vein as a Kōtare Spitfire - accurate and detailed enough without being OTT ... do you think it would sell better? ... and what's with the 1/16 pilot? ...

 

With the Takom Tiger.1 Big Box collections a 1/16 or Otto Carius or Micheal Whittmann at least makes sense as 'bonus content' ... because there are 1/16 kits in existence to stick the figure onto or with in a display situation.

 

I just can't see them selling well enough to justify the effort - especially for a 1st kit. Maybe if they followed Kōtares mantra of doing 5 kits that sell well and then something more left field? ... 

 

Rog

You speakth with forked tougue, to utter forth F9F or Beaufighter! Blasphemy I say! HEEHE WEHHEE I say it too. Those would at the very least plug holes in the kit line up and hey ya neva know they might even sell wonder of wonders. Takom are free to do whatever they want to being over 21 footloose and fancy free, also free to fall on their own sword[ but I hope not] 

[Rob Owens]

You people just don't get it!  A 1/32 Horten Series will be a license to print money, especially for all those up and coming 9 year-old modelers

Edited November 30, 2024 by Rob Owens

[Tony T]

1 hour ago, Rob Owens said:

You people just don't get it!  A 1/32 Horten Series will be a license to print money, especially for all those up and coming 9 year-old modelers

 

I get it. But do they really need all this what-if fantasy Noxie-1946 junk? It's slightly disturbing. 

In many ways I'd rather they made 1:32 Star Wars (cue theme tune) planes with 1:16th figures of Yoda et al. 

 

Tony 

[quang]

1 hour ago, Tony T said:

In many ways I'd rather they made 1:32 Star Wars (cue theme tune) planes with 1:16th figures of Yoda et al. 

Anyhow what’s a Horten but an Nazi plane from an Indiana Jones movie? Even their Horten pilot is a Buzz Lightyear rip-off.