Nazi Stealth Jet Reconstructed
Discussion
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...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529548,00.html...
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff