Nazi Stealth Jet Reconstructed

[Jimbeaux]

If this is a repost (the story broke here a few days ago), I apologize.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529548,00.html...

[Eric Mc]

Over on the "Boats, Trains, Planes" forum

And it was stealthy by fortuitousness - not be desgin.

Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 1st July 21:34

[remedy]

It's fascinating - and scarily similar to the B2 considering it's 30(?) years previous - but I thought anything flying "a few dozen feet" above the sea would be invisible to radar?

[Eric Mc]

remedy said:

It's fascinating - and scarily similar to the B2 considering it's 30(?) years previous - but I thought anything flying "a few dozen feet" above the sea would be invisible to radar?

Who built the B2?. Northrop.

Look at what Northrop had been building BEFORE they even saw a PHOTO of the Horten 229 -



And shortly after, this -



The B-35 project was begun in 1941.

[Jimbeaux]

Thanks Eric. I feel that news often gets sent to quiet corners of PH based solely upon their having a keyword that matches a catergory.

[The Hypno-Toad]

The big question is, does it fly?

[remedy]

Eric Mc said:

remedy said:

It's fascinating - and scarily similar to the B2 considering it's 30(?) years previous - but I thought anything flying "a few dozen feet" above the sea would be invisible to radar?

Who built the B2?. Northrop.

Look at what Northrop had been building BEFORE they even saw a PHOTO of the Horten 229 -



And shortly after, this -



The B-35 project was begun in 1941.

So defectors/spies accounting for the similar-identical designs?

[bigbadbikercats]

remedy said:

So defectors/spies accounting for the similar-identical designs?

Nope, combination of Jack Northrop being a talented, creative, and adventurous designer and tailless or "flying wing" layouts having enough intrinsic potential to encourage lots of people to dabble with them from time to time.

--
JG

[Tadite]

I don't think it is shocking that people would come up with increadibly similar designs. Even ones as radical as the flying wing!

[scorp]

Eric Mc said:

Who built the B2?. Northrop.

Interesting, i always assumed the Americans in 1941 didn't take radar that seriously..

Edited by scorp on Thursday 2nd July 02:04

[Eric Mc]

scorp said:

Eric Mc said:

Who built the B2?. Northrop.

Interesting, i always assumed the Americans in 1941 didn't take radar that seriously..

Edited by scorp on Thursday 2nd July 02:04

As I said, flying wings were not being designed withn radar stealth in mind back in the 30s and 40s. They were being designmed because of improved speed and range advantages conferred to a flying wing. They were NOT continued with into the 50s because of the difficulties in overcoming the inherent stability problems of all wing designs.

Stealth came along later.

Northrop were probably the world leaders in the whole field of flying wings - ahead of Horten or anybody else. It is absolutely no surprise that the concept was revived by Northrop in the 1970s as stealth became an issue and stability problems were overcome by computer controlled fly by wire.

[cardigankid]

No, this is the tool that could have won the war for him...

[eharding]

Jimbeaux said:

Thanks Eric. I feel that news often gets sent to quiet corners of PH based solely upon their having a keyword that matches a catergory.

...or, it could be that the moderators appreciate the sense of post-piemaggedon neo-symbolism of a thread about about things designed to get in under the radar.....that manages to, um, get in under the radar.

Edited by eharding on Friday 3rd July 23:16

[Jimbeaux]

eharding said:

Jimbeaux said:

Thanks Eric. I feel that news often gets sent to quiet corners of PH based solely upon their having a keyword that matches a catergory.

...or, it could be that the moderators appreciate the sense of post-piemaggedon neo-symbolism of a thread about about things designed to get in under the radar.....that manages to, um, get in under the radar.

Edited by eharding on Friday 3rd July 23:16

Ye think too hard upon this me lord!

[Alexj800]

cardigankid said:

No, this is the tool that could have won the war for him...

I've just read the wiki article on it. An interesting read.

I'm glad it could only fly for 7 minutes, although it wasnt that much faster than a Vampire anyway. The normal RAF tactic was to shoot it down when the fuel ran out

[Trooper2]

There was a documentary regarding this aircraft on the History or Discovery channel the other night.

[Eric Mc]

The 163 concept was extremely limited and of more danger to its pilot than the enemy. A deeply flawed and bonkers idea, in my opinion. Having said that, the Germans could get even more bonkers ideas - the Bachem 349 Natter.

[tank slapper]

Now that thing really was desparation. A vertical launch to the altitude of the bomber stream, pull a lever to release the nose cone and fire your burst of rockets roughly in their direction. Then, pull another lever to separate the engine so the pilot and it could fall back down under parachutes.

[jmorgan]

cardigankid said:

No, this is the tool that could have won the war for him...

The tool was production, not what it produced, obviously a useful tool for the job and a good prop would have done it. These were flights of fancy when reality in quantity with bullets were needed.

The US was good at production.

[cardigankid]

If you want a fascinating and insightful read, try 'Rocket Fighter Me163' by Mano Ziegler.