@@OldManse09 It was AFTER the war! In the early 50s actually. This wing was designed when R. Horten had immigrated in Argentina, after the war.

@ Thank you so much. The Smithsonian has a very similar Horton glider in their Virginia museum.

Huge wing area; massive lift.

That’s because it doesn’t have one what with being a glider

​@@richuar...THANX...NO MENTION OE IT BEING A GLIDER...! 👍

Same question I have.

slingshot type system, it doesnt glide for long

@@dr.wilfriedhitzler1885 Yes, kinda...

@@billbunting4253 It was a glider.

@ Towed, I thought so. A fully operations aircraft with similar wing earlier, and one of my favorites of all time, was the Waterman Aerobile. One hanging in the Smithsonian.

@@billbunting4253 Yes, it cannot be seen in this video, but apparently there is a towing winch in the distance. Waterman' s Aerobile was a completely different beast: it was motorized flying wing, intended as a "flying car". So, the wings were removable and the wheels powered just like in an automobile. The Horten Pappenheim in this video, was intended to be a trainer glider from the beginning. Of course, it was also a flying wing, like the Aerobile, but the similarities end here.

@ True to all you say. I was really thinking of the technological level at the time. From an aviation perspective. Commonalities were the swept back wing for both distributed lift, yaw and pitch stability, hence no rudder required, and the dihedral for roll stability. The Aerobile was developed up to 1935. It was incredibly stable to fly and could not be put into a flat spin nor stalled unintentionally. There was a simulator file for FX10 which I flew a number of times. It was not fast. The Horton Papenheim would have had very similar flying characteristics, except that the center of gravity of the Aerobile was lower and it had small wing tip rudders so the Horton would have been somewhat less stable.

@@billbunting4253 Provided that the Center of Gravity in the Pappenheim was correct, then it would also be very stable. It was reported as such, at least. In general, the correct CoG placement for a swept flying wing is one of the most critical aspects for its success, whether it is with endplates, or without. I really love these aircraft.

Indeed. And it flies wonderfully also at model scale. Watch my other video with the RC Horten XVc I have built: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qWGYp4annJxgZq8si=XwNCl-GpyUr8oYZg

@@kutlachakela Also the 229 flew. What do you mean exactly?

@@EarlHare Butter? With crisps?

Answer: VERY badly.

Like B-2

Magestic flying wings, for sure.

Kein motor. Es ist ein segelflugzeug und wird mit einem Katapult gestartet.

Ich bin kein Deutscher, das musst du mir sagen! :)

Well it is based in the proven Horten formula, the nice design by Gerard Jumelin and the...neat execution by me! :ppp

No, Greece! It is a blackbird singing.

Well, if you jave the spring starter they are quite easy to start. But you must always beware of your fingers, especially if you use modern propellers with sharp blade trailing edges. This applies to all model engines actually.

@@tifosaurus they have the springs, and little yellow plastic propellers with rubber tips

Σε ευχαριστώ πολύ!

Σε ευχαριστώ πολύ! Φτιάχνεται εύκολα, είναι απλό και πετάει καλά. Τί άλλο να ζητήσει κανείς;

Ευχαριστώ πολύ! Έβγαζα με το κινητό στο χέρι και φαντάσου πλαγιάρα που είναι και το επέτρεπε κάτι τέτοιο! Η προσγείωση γίνεται πίσω από το πλάνο του βίντεο, σε χωματόδρομο καθαρό από βράχια, αλλά με κροκάλες να καραδοκούν στο πλάι. Λίγο tricky, η αλήθεια είναι, αλλά γι αυτό προτιμώ πτέρυγες και μάλιστα φοαμένιες με ταινίες. Απλές, ανθεκτικές και πετάνε ωραία.

Nope!Just did it and put the engine on the self!

@@tifosaurus ok

Hi Lawrence! Got it, thanks for the answer!

Thank you for the plan Gerard!

Thanks rigididiot. No, I do not use that engine. The modification had only been done as a "proof of concept". Anyway, thanks for the info.

Oh, OK.... I am running mine now for 2 years or so, not as proof of concept, but as every-day-flyers, and it has been everything I expected from it, and converted every other glow engine I own to gasoline, and get very regular requests from others to convert their engine for them. The money savings are spectacular, the reliability and ease of use is "not of this world"...

I see what you mean. I would have surely modified any big glow engine into gasoline, if I was still flying fuel-powered models.

:D I'm not really modifying "big" engines.... (OK... I have an ASP Boxer also...) I am more into small and handy.... I succesfully converted a .30 fourstroke, and it has become a real jewel, with flighttimes of up to one hour on a single tank, zero noise issues and minimal field equipment: I can fuel it at home, bring only the plane and transmitter, and easily make 5 flights… Zero noise issues (quieter than most electric planes).

Hi! Didn't measure, actually. That was the only test I ever performed on that engine. After that, it has become my hangar queen...!

I don't remember what glow plug I used. What's the correct one according to you?