Venus6971
Topic Author
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:26 am

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
 
michlis
Posts: 696
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:13 am

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:38 pm



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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:21 pm

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 avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:00 pm

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 avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4109
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:09 pm

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 avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23209
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:56 pm

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.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:37 pm



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

And I doubt that they had no clue.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:59 pm



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 avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4109
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:57 pm

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)
 
pelican
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Thu Jul 02, 2009 7:48 am



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
 
GST
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:27 am

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:43 am

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.
 
AGC525
Posts: 956
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 9:50 am

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:41 pm

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!
 
kingairta
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:24 pm

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:31 pm

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 avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Thu Jul 02, 2009 2:24 pm

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
 
AGC525
Posts: 956
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 9:50 am

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Thu Jul 02, 2009 2:47 pm



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!
 
Venus6971
Topic Author
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:12 pm



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
 
AGC525
Posts: 956
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 9:50 am

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:42 pm

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!
 
Venus6971
Topic Author
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Thu Jul 02, 2009 4:03 pm



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
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Thu Jul 02, 2009 4:47 pm



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 avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Thu Jul 02, 2009 4:49 pm



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
 
pelican
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Thu Jul 02, 2009 6:11 pm



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
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Thu Jul 02, 2009 7:17 pm



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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:11 pm



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
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:46 pm



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.
 
pelican
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:43 pm



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
 
BMI727
Posts: 11123
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:52 am

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 stealth qualities. It has no tail, no props, and no external stores. But it lacks RAM and angles surfaces/serration of panels. It would certainly look smaller than most other comprable aircraft, but would not be invisible.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
ElpinDAB
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 7:00 am

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Sun Jul 05, 2009 2:37 am

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 with shape than materials.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 25):
It would certainly look smaller than most other comparable aircraft, but would not be invisible.

From Flight Global's article (I don't watch TV)

"From the time most Luftwaffe planes appeared on British radar they could reach their target in 19 minutes. The 2-29, aided by its speed and stealth, could reach its target in only 8 minutes. "It would have been a game changer," one Northrop engineer says. The 2-29 would have permitted just 2.5 minutes to respond."

The Mosquito's speed was greatly outmatched by the end of the war, when the Me262 was introduced. The best piston fighters of the European theater could go faster, such as the P51D, the P47D and later variants, the Merlin Spifires, FW-190's, everything after the ME-109-G's, and many more. Other than the Mossie's black nightfighter paint, I don't see any reason why it would be stealthy on radar...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 22):
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.

Herman Goering was very big on bomb payloads...The .229 was designed as a fighter. That might have been the reason it didn't see production. Goering was probably the reason the Luftwaffe didn't succeed. He failed to see the significance of fighters, and failed to allow new technologies to manifest. I read his biography, and wrote a paper about it.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11123
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Sun Jul 05, 2009 4:18 am



Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 26):
Other than the Mossie's black nightfighter paint, I don't see any reason why it would be stealthy on radar...

It was made of wood. Wood shows up less on radar due to less conductivity or something like that.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:34 pm



Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 26):
The Mosquito's speed was greatly outmatched by the end of the war, when the Me262 was introduced.

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 significant, is that the Mossie bomber version could carry 10,000 pounds of bombs at that high speed -- about the same load as a B-17.

There's an argument that Bomber Command should have focussed on sending squadrons of Mosquitoes over Germany instead of Lancasters; might have had a higher survival rate because of the speed and the lower radar profile.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4109
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:37 pm



Quoting Arrow (Reply 28):
the Mossie bomber version could carry 10,000 pounds of bombs

No way.

This is completely off topic BTW.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:16 pm



Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 29):
No way.

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, Mosquitos took part in many bombing operations as pathfinders, marking targets with flares for later attack by massive formations of heavy bombers. Bomber Command Mosquitos flew over 28,000 operations, dropping 35,000 tons (31,751 tonnes) of bombs, and losing just 193 aircraft in the process (a loss rate of 0.7%, compared to a 2.2% loss rate for the four-engined heavies). It has been calculated that a Mosquito could be loaded with a 4,000 lb (1,800 kg) "cookie" bomb, fly to Germany, drop the bomb, return, bomb up and refuel, fly back, drop a second bomb, and return, and still land before a Stirling (the slowest of Bomber Command's four-engined bombers) could strike Germany with a full bomb load.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
ElpinDAB
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 7:00 am

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:53 am



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
It was made of wood. Wood shows up less on radar due to less conductivity or something like that.

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 year or two of service, but that was a very short time, especially in the scheme of WW2, when technology advanced SO much.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 28):

True, but when it was first introduced the Mossie was faster than the latest Spitfire variant (Spit V, I think).

You're probably about right on the speed part...This was only true for a shot while though. The Mosquito's greatest advantage came when it was first introduced.
Almost every aircraft was obselete within a couple of years of service, unless it was greatly upgraded. Eg, the FW190, which originally had a radial engine and was optimized for dogfighting and close support, but later became a high altitude interceptor with an inline engine, and was optimized for "high" altitude bomber interception, much like the evolution of the jet fighters from the F-86 to Cold War era of ideology that high speed interceptors would dictate, or overrulle, fighter design. Too bad the Avro Arrow never saw production!! That was a nice plane! The Mossie's advantage was quickly diminished after a very short time, and it was never upgraded enough from about late 1942-onwards to experience a great speed advantage.

Unlike jet designs though, the WW2 era piston aircraft generally remained maneuverable, eg the Spitfire, FW-190, etc, with their engine upgrades throughout the war, mainly given their same basic platforms, but with higher wing loadings but the same wing.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 28):
There's an argument that Bomber Command should have focussed on sending squadrons of Mosquitoes over Germany instead of Lancasters; might have had a higher survival rate because of the speed and the lower radar profile.

I agree here. It would have had more tactical advantages. Especially since WW2 bombers were sitting ducks.

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 29):
This is completely off topic BTW.

Wow, yea. Back on topic. I feel responsible for aversion. I don't even know what I'm talking about.

But yea, the .229 was a major leap in aviation technology, much like the entire trend of the era. I probably shouldn't have expanded as much as I did in either of these posts, because my major point is that I don't think that the .229's stealth was attributable to its wooden structure as much as its shape. For example, it engine exhaust nozzles were on top of the fuselage, just like the B-2's and YF-23's,which reduces the heat signature from below. It used many parallel lines in it's plan form. Even it's cockpit dome is structured much like the F-22's. Like the summaries of the show, I don't know if this was due to chance or planning, but it's stunning nevertheless. I have always been stunned by the level of technology that the Germans had by the end of WW2, that never saw production, because of monetary/resources factors. The .229 is only one of many examples. Some even feel that the Russians based their Mig15 plans from stolen designs of the Focke-Wulf Ta183, not that the US's F-86 also followed a similarly suspicious design...

But, like I said, I really don't know what I'm talking about. I'm replying from impulse, and I don't know much.

I don't want to kill this thread b/c it's going well.
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4109
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:24 am

Now I'm guilty of continuing the off-topic discussion:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 30):

 Smile You just made me reach for my reference books because, if the Mosquito could carry the same bombload as the B-17 over the same distance, the latter would have been a monumental waste of manpower and resources.
In fact the Mosquito's bombload was more typically 2,000 lbs. 10,000 lbs for the B-17 is also a bit optimistic, however (though not for the British heavy bombers).

Peter Smile
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
GST
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:27 am

RE: WW2 Luftwaffe Stealth Bomber

Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:09 am



Quoting ElpinDAB (Reply 31):

Quoting Arrow (Reply 28):
There's an argument that Bomber Command should have focussed on sending squadrons of Mosquitoes over Germany instead of Lancasters; might have had a higher survival rate because of the speed and the lower radar profile.

I agree here. It would have had more tactical advantages. Especially since WW2 bombers were sitting ducks.

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 fewer personnel in the bomber stream, but I do believe it would also have greatly increased the time spent forming up especially in bad weather, giving the germans additional time seeing the raid on radar that the aircrafts' speed advantage just couldnt recover sufficiently. You would also have seen more mid air collisions with the greater number of aircraft. Larger formations mean the shit hits the fan even more potently when an aircraft loses control in the middle.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests