Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber  
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7933 times:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529548,00.html?test=latestnews
This looks curiously like a B-2, no wonder NG wanted to rebuild it and see how close they came to a clear advantage over the allies.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMichlis From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7844 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Thread starter):
This looks curiously like a B-2, no wonder NG wanted to rebuild it and see how close they came to a clear advantage over the allies.

Unless they built them in large quantities there probably wouldn't have been an overwhelming advantage.



If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
User currently onlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7828 times:

Actually, Germany got the flying wing design from Northrup's 1935 design. I plan to watch this on the NatGo channel on 5 July.

You are right, like the Me-262 Swallow, it came to late in the war to help the Nazis, and there were not enough of them/


User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10424 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 7801 times:

Hitler would just have misused them, just as he did the 262.


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7736 times:

The flying wing shape was chosen for aerodynamic efficiency, to reduce the amount of thirsty jet propulsion needed. I doubt the Germans had a clue about the stealth characteristics.

Peter Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7635 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Unfortunately a cable failure Sunday night prevented me from watching the NGC special, so I have to wait for the re-broadcast on the 5th. But it does look interesting.

User currently offlineNicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1099 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7605 times:



Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 4):
I doubt the Germans had a clue about the stealth characteristics.

And I doubt that they had no clue.


User currently onlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7593 times:



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 6):
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 4):
I doubt the Germans had a clue about the stealth characteristics.

And I doubt that they had no clue.

Correct. The Germans knew this airplane would not be picked up on the types of radar in use in 1944/1945.


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 7532 times:

OK, thanks for correcting me. But apparently it was not the reason for picking the flying wing, so did they find out by accident?


The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinePelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2531 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7427 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
Actually, Germany got the flying wing design from Northrup's 1935 design.

That's not true at all. The Horten brothers build their first flying wing aircraft in 1933.
I guess Nothrop and the Horten Brothers worked independently on the flying wing design until the end of the war when Nothrop got the plans from Horten.

pelican


User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7410 times:

I dont doubt that at a few feet from the deck it would have been invisible to the allies, but I'm fairly sure that a great many aircraft could remain invisible fy flying in this manner in the time. Also, perhaps the radar reflection of one 229 could evade detection, but I seriously doubt that if you had a strike formation there you wouldnt get enough of a return to warrant scrambling fighters in a time of war. Not to mention the dangers of flying so low in tight formation often presumably at night without the benefit of many of the tools military aircraft are fitted with now.

Quoting Pelican (Reply 9):

That's not true at all. The Horten brothers build their first flying wing aircraft in 1933.
I guess Nothrop and the Horten Brothers worked independently on the flying wing design until the end of the war when Nothrop got the plans from Horten.

Like many other techincal improvements, the flying wing was invented by multiple groups independently. Really the development of the concept wasnt a huge leap forewards. Wings make lift, if we make the whole thing a wing, we get more lift. However, the work in getting it to function acceptably was enormous, especially for te engineers of the time without all the rapid computations that can be done today by computers. Simply stunning that they got it working. Hats off to all of them.


User currently offlineAGC525 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 989 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7334 times:

The good folks at Northrop Grumman proved it was not stealthy. Perhaps the Germans used wood as a means of supply, since metal was at premium.


American Aviation: From Kitty Hawk to the Moon in 66 years!
User currently offlineKingairta From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7313 times:

When NG put the plane on the pole and tested it the RCS was quite abit smaller then a comparable sized bomber.

They did show that it wasn't entirely stealthy due to the window frames and engine enlets. But given the RADAR tech of 1944 the RADAR returns were low enough that by the time the british RADAR picked up the airplanes it would have been too late. Not enough lead time to scramble the spits.


User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10424 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7293 times:

Looking at that photo, how do they plan on getting it out of there?


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineAGC525 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 989 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7286 times:



Quoting Kingairta (Reply 12):
When NG put the plane on the pole and tested it the RCS was quite abit smaller then a comparable sized bomber.

Yeah, your right. I was thinking in todays standards.

Quoting Mayor (Reply 13):
Looking at that photo, how do they plan on getting it out of there?

It was a hangar type area, they showed them "tugging" it out. I'm sure there is another door.



American Aviation: From Kitty Hawk to the Moon in 66 years!
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7274 times:



Quoting Kingairta (Reply 12):
When NG put the plane on the pole and tested it the RCS was quite abit smaller then a comparable sized bomber.

They did show that it wasn't entirely stealthy due to the window frames and engine enlets. But given the RADAR tech of 1944 the RADAR returns were low enough that by the time the british RADAR picked up the airplanes it would have been too late. Not enough lead time to scramble the spits

By WW2 standards for radar wouldn't that have made the Dehaviland Mosquito also a stealth acft since its construction was entirely of wood with some metal protruding such as engines, cannon, pitot system?



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineAGC525 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 989 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 7260 times:

They never really covered the ordance issue.

What would the Horton 229 been able to carry as far as bombs and guns?

It seems in the animation on the show, it had guns only. I can't see how more effective it could be by gun running alone.



American Aviation: From Kitty Hawk to the Moon in 66 years!
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7254 times:



Quoting AGC525 (Reply 16):
They never really covered the ordance issue.

What would the Horton 229 been able to carry as far as bombs and guns?

It seems in the animation on the show, it had guns only. I can't see how more effective it could be by gun running alone.

Would have made it a effective Wild Weasel for SAM and AAA suppression.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7238 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 15):


By WW2 standards for radar wouldn't that have made the Dehaviland Mosquito also a stealth acft since its construction was entirely of wood with some metal protruding such as engines, cannon, pitot system?

yes, it was alot harder to pickup than the other fighters, but it wasn't "invisible". Still it was an advantage that proved to be valuble, double so against the radar equipped nightfighters where it was far harder to pick out of the noise.


User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10424 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7235 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 15):
since its construction was entirely of wood with some metal protruding such as engines, cannon, pitot system?

Except the Mosquito never had cannons or machine guns. It used its terrific speed as its main weapon.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinePelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2531 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7197 times:



Quoting AGC525 (Reply 16):
It seems in the animation on the show, it had guns only. I can't see how more effective it could be by gun running alone.

Its planned bomb load of 2.000kg would have made it a mid-sized bomber.

Quoting Kingairta (Reply 12):
They did show that it wasn't entirely stealthy due to the window frames and engine enlets. But given the RADAR tech of 1944 the RADAR returns were low enough that by the time the british RADAR picked up the airplanes it would have been too late. Not enough lead time to scramble the spits.

Considering its top speed of 800+ kph the spitfires would have had a very hard time to catch it.

pelican


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7169 times:



Quoting Mayor (Reply 19):
Except the Mosquito never had cannons or machine guns. It used its terrific speed as its main weapon.

There were fighter versions of the Mosquito in addition to the bomber versions.


User currently onlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7149 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 15):
By WW2 standards for radar wouldn't that have made the Dehaviland Mosquito also a stealth acft since its construction was entirely of wood with some metal protruding such as engines, cannon, pitot system?

The Germans had a very hard time finding the RAF Mosquito on the radar they had.

Quoting AGC525 (Reply 16):
What would the Horton 229 been able to carry as far as bombs and guns?



Quoting Pelican (Reply 20):
Its planned bomb load of 2.000kg would have made it a mid-sized bomber.

A 2000 kg (4400 lbs) bomb load would have made more sense, and would have been about the bomb load of other Luftwaffe WWII bombers.

But Wiki says the bomb load for the Horten Ho-229A (V-3) is only 2 500 kg bombs (1000 kg, 2200 lbs), 2 Mk 108 cannons (30mm), and R4M rockets. The V-3 was the fighter version, while the never completed V-6 would have been the bomber version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7084 times:



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 21):
Quoting Mayor (Reply 19):
Except the Mosquito never had cannons or machine guns. It used its terrific speed as its main weapon.

There were fighter versions of the Mosquito in addition to the bomber versions.

Indeed, I believe the 'Mossie' maritime attack variant had a 57 mm cannon mounted. A fairly big gun for a relatively small a/c.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2531 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6871 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
But Wiki says the bomb load for the Horten Ho-229A (V-3) is only 2 500 kg bombs (1000 kg, 2200 lbs), 2 Mk 108 cannons (30mm), and R4M rockets. The V-3 was the fighter version, while the never completed V-6 would have been the bomber version.

Indeed the V-3 prototype - which also never flew - had only a bomb load of 1.000 kg.
The V-5 prototype - which was under construction at the end of WW2 - had a planned bomb load of 2.000 kg. At least that's what I found out reading some websites dedicated to WW2 aircraft. The V-6 was a two man cockpit bomber version, which never got beyond its design stage. The (newly build) V-3 prototype is the one which Nothrop used for radar testing.

pelican


25 BMI727 : Unfortunately I missed the show, but I have to take issue somewhat with its being called a "stealth bomber." It is a flying wing, and posesses some st
26 ElpinDAB : I love the Mossie, but I think the Go.229 would have been designed from aluminum, if resources had permitted. It's stealth probably has more to do wit
27 BMI727 : It was made of wood. Wood shows up less on radar due to less conductivity or something like that.
28 Arrow : True, but when it was first introduced the Mossie was faster than the latest Spitfire variant (Spit V, I think). The difference, and it's pretty sign
29 Ptrjong : No way. This is completely off topic BTW.
30 Arrow : You're right -- max was 4000 lbs. Not sure where I pulled that 10,000 from, but brain obviously not in gear ... From wiki: As part of 8 Group, Mosqui
31 ElpinDAB : Fair enough. That made it a far more vulnerable aircraft in combat though... A2A or G2A... It's speed advantage played a major role during its first
32 Ptrjong : Now I'm guilty of continuing the off-topic discussion: You just made me reach for my reference books because, if the Mosquito could carry the same bom
33 GST : But to achieve the same bomb load you would then need to more than double the number of aircraft in the bomber stream. It would still mean putting fe
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
BWB: The Next Stealth Bomber? posted Thu Jun 28 2007 22:14:19 by Blackbird1331
B-1 Bomber Departing LGB - May 18, 2009 posted Sun May 17 2009 20:39:44 by Itsjustme
US Strategic Bomber Replacement Timetable May Slip posted Tue Jan 27 2009 16:50:40 by Stitch
Hampden Bomber Broken By... Snow posted Mon Jan 5 2009 06:16:49 by ZANL188
WW2 Pilot Charley Fox Death- Memorial posted Mon Nov 3 2008 16:37:12 by MissedApproach
Fighter/Bomber Roll-Rates posted Wed Oct 8 2008 03:46:51 by Blackbird
Attack And Bomber Aircraft -- Differences? posted Wed Aug 6 2008 11:16:24 by Blackbird
Usaf Releases First B-2 Stealth Crash Photos posted Mon Jul 14 2008 13:18:12 by GothamSpotter
Plans For A Stealth Refueling Jet? posted Mon May 5 2008 09:13:22 by DL767captain
Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber posted Sun Apr 27 2008 16:38:23 by CO787EWR
Stealth Bomber Circling Pasadena posted Sun Dec 7 2008 15:02:07 by Ikramerica
BWB: The Next Stealth Bomber? posted Thu Jun 28 2007 22:14:19 by Blackbird1331
Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber? posted Mon Apr 9 2012 08:58:23 by Revelation
What Happened To German WW2 Fighters? posted Sat Sep 3 2011 14:01:25 by spudh
CIA Stealth Chopper Examine By Chinese posted Mon Aug 15 2011 03:53:48 by breiz
China's J-20 Stealth Fighter Leaked Footage posted Thu Jun 30 2011 13:14:08 by tripleboom
Stealth Blackhawk, Where Was It Built? posted Tue May 24 2011 21:10:06 by wardialer
Chinese Stealth Fighter Emerges... posted Mon Dec 27 2010 12:44:39 by alberchico
Lancaster Bomber Memorial Video posted Sat Oct 16 2010 14:12:06 by doering
Building A Plane In 24hrs - Wellington During WW2 posted Mon Sep 13 2010 02:54:19 by oly720man
Stealth Bomber Circling Pasadena posted Sun Dec 7 2008 15:02:07 by Ikramerica
BWB: The Next Stealth Bomber? posted Thu Jun 28 2007 22:14:19 by Blackbird1331
Cost Of Next Usaf Bomber? posted Mon Apr 9 2012 08:58:23 by Revelation
What Happened To German WW2 Fighters? posted Sat Sep 3 2011 14:01:25 by spudh
CIA Stealth Chopper Examine By Chinese posted Mon Aug 15 2011 03:53:48 by breiz
China's J-20 Stealth Fighter Leaked Footage posted Thu Jun 30 2011 13:14:08 by tripleboom
Stealth Blackhawk, Where Was It Built? posted Tue May 24 2011 21:10:06 by wardialer
Chinese Stealth Fighter Emerges... posted Mon Dec 27 2010 12:44:39 by alberchico
Lancaster Bomber Memorial Video posted Sat Oct 16 2010 14:12:06 by doering
Building A Plane In 24hrs - Wellington During WW2 posted Mon Sep 13 2010 02:54:19 by oly720man

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format