Article

2009-07-01 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Nazi Stealth Jet: U.S. Team Rebuilds Nazi Secret Jet

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Sherry 2009-07-01 00:09|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11133 views ] Top

#1 This is yet another manufactured sensation aimed ultimately at discrediting American and British technical achievements.
The language and tone of this article and of the broadcast invite a whole raft of false assumptions about just how advanced and significant a technology this was.

There has been nothing secret or mysterious about the HO-229 for many, many years. The broadcast claimed, for example, that the HO-229 prototype (the real one) had been "hidden" in a hangar in Maryland after the war. It was actually stored at the NASM facility in Silver Hill, along with many other relics, and anyone who seemed to know what they were doing could go in and see it and take pictures. I have been aware of it for many years and there are sections on it in aviation history books dating back to the late 40s.

As for its sensational stealth performance, almost any aircraft "flying a few dozen feet above the channel" would have been invisible to radar in the days before pulse-doppler. It would scarcely have had the payload/range performance to do more than annoy the allies. Early jet engines used fuel at a prodigious rate and this was much worse at low altitude. The Horten's radius of action would have been quite short, especially carrying a bomb load and having to hug the ground to evade allied radar. An internal bomb bay would have reduced fuel capacity and range but would have been absolutely necessary if stealth characteristics were to be retained. It would also have been vulnerable to allied jets like the Meteor IV and P-80 by the time it entered service.

Northrop-Grumman's real finding was that its special glue reduced the radar signature by about 20%. The flying wing configuration and wooden construction, which it shared with Northrop flying wings built years earlier, account for most of its stealthiness. It is therefore largely serendipitous and not the result of Nazi era super-science which we primitive Americans then stole and exploited for our own purposes.
This is not to say that the Horten brothers didn't know about the design's likely stealth characteristics. Most likely they did, since they had built a number of flying wing gliders, and they just decided to tweak this advantage in a rather simple and obvious way by experimenting with glue formulations.

"It's significantly better than anything flying operationally probably until the 1960s."
It's worth noting that the prototype had flown just 2 hours during the war and was very far from being operational.

Northrop N-9M, 1942
This is also a wooden flying wing, though not a jet. It undoubtedly had, and still has, a very small radar cross section even though this was not a design consideration at all.

Northrop in fact designed a flying wing jet fighter of its own during the war, the XP-79. This was conceptually one of the most radical aircraft ever designed, for it was not only a flying wing and initially rocket powered, it was made of welded magnesium and and had a prone pilot position. The XP-79 failed largely because Northrop was too busy with other work and farmed it out it to an incompetent sub-contractor in LA. By the time the project was straightened out, the AAF had little need for a point defense interceptor, rocket or otherwise, and the XP-79 was re-engined with turbojets and completed as a test bed for the prone pilot configuration. It crashed fatally on its first flight, possibly because of a defective canopy latch installed by the sub-contractor. (This information comes from Rocket Fighter by William Green, Ballantine Books, 1967)
More pics here.

It is a fact of history that Northrop's own XB-35 flying wing bomber was designed before any American could have known about the Horten (starting before Pearl Harbor in fact). Finally, the much maligned British produced a whole flock of tailless and flying wing aircraft during and just after the war.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2009-07-01 03:44|| 2009-07-01 03:44|| Front Page Top

#2 The XP-79 may have been a dismal failure but its science fiction looks did not go to waste. The Martian war machines in the George Pal movie version of War of the Worlds, made in 1953, bear a striking resemblance to the XP-79. There is another Northrop product in the film as well; the XB-49 flying wing was used to drop an atomic bomb on the invading Martians, though without much effect. The XB-49 had already been scrapped by the time the movie was made and stock footage was used.
It's odd that the much more recent Sci-fi movie Independence Day also has a scene in which a Northrop flying wing (a B-2 this time) ineffectively attacks the alien invaders with a nuke.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2009-07-01 04:48|| 2009-07-01 04:48|| Front Page Top

#3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2009-07-01 06:05|| 2009-07-01 06:05|| Front Page Top

#4 AT, I hardly think the project was undertaken by NG to discredit American technology. The NG engineers who built the RCS replica certainly seemed to be under the impression that the Horton 229 was built with radar stealth characteristics in mind, and that its mission was to avoid British radar. I thought that was the whole point. Or are you saying that the Americans and British were also building aircraft designed for stealth at that time?

The Germans also had a rocket powered interceptor, the Me 163, that went into production and actually saw combat, in spite of its poor capability in that role.

I don't think anyone is claiming that these concepts were not being explored by the Allies as well, only that the Germans were a few months ahead in some areas, like jet fighers, rocket powered fighters, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and guided bombs.

Posted by Cynicism Inc 2009-07-01 06:33|| 2009-07-01 06:33|| Front Page Top

#5 I mean AC not AT.

Posted by Cynicism Inc 2009-07-01 06:34|| 2009-07-01 06:34|| Front Page Top

#6 Actually, I'm sort of glad the Krauts built this one. Every pfennig they spent on immature, long-development-time technologies like this was another pfennig that didn't get spent on something with actual immediate military utility. No less a scientist than Freeman Dyson credited the V-2 project with being equal to "unilateral disarmament."

Posted by Mike 2009-07-01 06:44|| 2009-07-01 06:44|| Front Page Top

#7 That may be true, but again the point of the NG exercise was to investigate the technology, not the wisdom or morality of the German war efforts which are obviously questionable.

Posted by Cynicism Inc 2009-07-01 07:15|| 2009-07-01 07:15|| Front Page Top

#8 AC Says; before any American could have known about the Horten (starting before Pearl Harbor in fact). Finally, the much maligned British produced a whole flock of tailless and flying wing aircraft during and just after the war.

I loved your retrospective and your writing is so precise. Having said this the outtake copied above, must mean your not really cognizant of quantum potential...yet. Its functioned for ages without anyones official approval, acknowledgment or endoresment....

but then again, its easier to just follow the linear path.

Posted by Grerelet Bucket6078 2009-07-01 07:45|| 2009-07-01 07:45|| Front Page Top

#9 Mike, if the Germans had gotten the Horten into production in 1944 or 5, there were no Allied AAA or airplanes that could touch it, neither in speed or ceiling. Not even the XP-80. That's assuming it didn't crash on the way to the target because of flying wings' notorious stability problems. The "stealth" was incidental. All of England would have been one big target, including the millions of tons of supplies out in the open for the Normandy invasion.

For bombing the USA, Horten proposed a 6 engine flying wing, the Horten Ho XVIII that looked a lot like the YB-35/49.

A quick synopsis of Northrup's work. Notice the first flying prototype (with twin booms) in 1928.

As for what could have been, my favorite was the Lockheed L-133, a canard jet fighter proposed in the 1930's. The engines would have been the J-37.

Posted by ed 2009-07-01 07:48|| 2009-07-01 07:48|| Front Page Top

#10 Mike; No less a scientist than Freeman Dyson credited the V-2 project with being equal to "unilateral disarmament."

projective identification....hindsight in maintenace to ego.

Posted by Grerelet Bucket6078 2009-07-01 07:52|| 2009-07-01 07:52|| Front Page Top

#11 Another project:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/mluphoup/haunebu4_1.jpg

Posted by Anonymoose 2009-07-01 09:48|| 2009-07-01 09:48|| Front Page Top

#12 Has Boeing been skulking around the "secret" facility in Virginia stealing the design for their 797? Did they also find the lost Ark?

Or is Boeing spreading a hoax to hide the real 797 design?

Northrup has been there and done that in 1949. What a visionary.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2009-07-01 11:20|| 2009-07-01 11:20|| Front Page Top

#13 AT, I hardly think the project was undertaken by NG to discredit American technology.

I did not suggest that Northrop-Grumman itself had any such motivation; that is a strawman. I am clearly referring to the sensationalized and exaggerated media coverage of this project.

The NG engineers who built the RCS replica certainly seemed to be under the impression that the Horton 229 was built with radar stealth characteristics in mind, and that its mission was to avoid British radar.
Where does it say they were under that impression? They were aware that it had stealth characteristics, of course, but that is not the same as saying they believed this was the main intent of the design.

I thought that was the whole point. Or are you saying that the Americans and British were also building aircraft designed for stealth at that time?

The allies were certainly aware of the possiblities. They knew about the low RCS of wooden aircraft and flying wings. The Horten was designed as fighter, not a strike aircraft. I believe its stealth characteristics were largely serendipitous, since they are inherent in the flying wing configuration and the wooden structural material, neither of which was originated for that purpose. With the single exception of the special glue, there was nothing in the Horten that was not also available to the allies.

I don't think anyone is claiming that these concepts were not being explored by the Allies as well, only that the Germans were a few months ahead in some areas, like jet fighers, rocket powered fighters, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and guided bombs.

That is certainly not the thrust of the media coverage. An ill-informed poster at Free Republic spelled out the invited inference this morning: "The B-2 is a rip-off of the Horten bomber (sic)."

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2009-07-01 12:52|| 2009-07-01 12:52|| Front Page Top

#14 Northrop N-1M

A wooden flying wing built in 1939 by and American, imagine that?

The N-1M that evolved from many design studies and model tests was the first such tailless configuration to appear in the United States. The experimental aircraft was distinguished by the absence of any of the unusual appendages; the pronounced anhedral, or downward droop, of the wing tips gave the airplane a distinctly bird-like appearance. Aircraft configuration could be varied on the ground between tests to permit in-flight evaluation of the many variables associated with wing sweep, dihedral, and the all-wing design. In effect, the N-1M was the forerunner of today's "variable geometry" airplanes.

Control of the N-1M was accomplished using many of the same techniques and methods employed by the Hortens in Germany and other European designers. Elevons operated together for pitch control and differentially for roll control. Rudder control was accomplished initially with a plain split flap or "clamshell" at each wing tip. Actuated independently by the rudder pedals, they opened to produce drag, which, in turn, induced yaw. Both split flaps could also be opened simultaneously to increase gliding angle or reduce airspeed, thus serving in the role of air brakes.

The ICI-1M was of wooden construction, and thus easily adaptable to the many changes in configuration to which it was subjected during the flight test program. The aircraft was initially powered by two submerged 65-hp Lycoming 0-145 four-cylinder, horizontally-opposed engines driving two bladed pusher propellers by means of extension shafts. The engines, which were later replaced by 117-hp six-cylinder, air-cooled Franklin engines driving three-bladed propellers, were cooled by means of slot-type intakes in the leading edge of the wing.

Engineering and construction of the N-1 M took exactly one year, beginning in July 1939. The first flight of the N-1M, nicknamed the "Jeep," was in July 1940, and indeed was an accidental one, as pilot Vance Breese bounced the airplane into the air during a high-speed taxi run on Baker Dry Lake, California.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2009-07-01 13:22|| 2009-07-01 13:22|| Front Page Top

#15 You see, GB, that just shows how dumb and backward those nefarious American military-industrial types really are. They didn't even know to rip off their own designs rather than stealing one from the Aryan supermen.
/Germanophile pidgin logic, courtesy of the ~~Hitler~~ History Channel

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2009-07-01 13:33|| 2009-07-01 13:33|| Front Page Top

#16 AC

From the "Planes of Fame" collection near LA.

Enjoy

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2009-07-01 14:04|| 2009-07-01 14:04|| Front Page Top

#17 a copy is on display at San Diego Air and Space Museum in Balboa Park:

Flying Wing Joins SDASM Collection

SDASM welcomes its newest addition, the Horten 229 Flying Wing. The National Geographic Channel and Northrop Grumman Corporation teamed up to build the Flying Wing replica for Hitler's Stealth Fighter, a new documentary premiering June 28, 2009 at 9:00 p.m. The top-secret Nazi stealth fighter was reconstructed to determine if Hitler's military had stealth capabilities three decades before the United States. The Flying Wing is scheduled to be unveiled as part of the Museum's World War II Gallery on Wednesday, June 24, 2009.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2009-07-01 15:00|| 2009-07-01 15:00|| Front Page Top

#18 I did not suggest that Northrop-Grumman itself had any such motivation; that is a strawman. I am clearly referring to the sensationalized and exaggerated media coverage of this project.

OK, I take it back. However I didn't see any intent on the part of Nat Geo to make it an "us vs them" story.

Where does it say they were under that impression?

I thought it was clearly stated, but I could be wrong.

They were aware that it had stealth characteristics, of course, but that is not the same as saying they believed this was the main intent of the design.

I didn't say they believed that was the main intent of the design, only that they believed that it was designed with stealth in mind.

The allies were certainly aware of the possiblities.

Yes, but the point is the Hortons actually built this thing.

I believe its stealth characteristics were largely serendipitous

The reason that the stealth aspect has been bandied about is that Reimar Horton stated this was an intentional design feature. He could have been lying of course. It may not have been the main design goal, but the point of the exercise was to measure that aspect of the design, not its flight characteristics.

That is certainly not the thrust of the media coverage.

I don't know what the media coverage is like, I only saw the program. I was referring to what I read in historical accounts. But I still don't see how hyped media accounts imply something negative about American technology.

Posted by Cynicism Inc 2009-07-01 16:59|| 2009-07-01 16:59|| Front Page Top

#19 Cynicism, I understand and acknowledge that the Hortens were aware of the Ho-229's low RCS while it was still under design. Having this in mind doesn't make it the main thrust of the design. Horten has always said that, like other flying wing pioneers, that he was primarily interested in the low drag characteristics of the airframe as a way of approaching Goering's 1000/1000/1000 performance objective (1000Km/hr over 1000Km range with a 1000Kg bombload.)

I don't know what the media coverage is like, I only saw the program.

If you have read the posted article, you know what the media coverage has been like.

I was referring to what I read in historical accounts. But I still don't see how hyped media accounts imply something negative about American technology.

So, the claim that this was decades in advance of anything the allies had, and that it could have won the war for the Nazis doesn't imply anything negative about allied technology? Judging from the responses at various message boards, that is exactly the conclusion being drawn.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2009-07-01 17:59|| 2009-07-01 17:59|| Front Page Top

#20 AC, I agree from what I've read that the main design goal from the point of view of the RLM was to meet the three 1,000's spec. (which actually seems more like a bomber spec). What I meant to say was that the premise of the NG project was, based on how the program presented it, to test a mission scenario that called for eluding the British air defense system. One part of that requirement was reducing radar detection range, and another part was having speed sufficient to make intercept by British fighters difficult. So radar evasion and high performance were both part of the scenario. I agree that the sea skimming aspect of the scenario was kind of dubious, because any aircraft could get some degree radar invisibility that way.

Your complaint is with the written media articles, which, judging from statements like "could have won the war for Hitler" are indeed sensationalistic and ridiculous. But "what if" seems to be a commonly indulged-in mind game, even by serious historians, and others like alternative-history novelists. The same things have been said incessantly about the Me 262, the V2, and so on.

I take your point that there are ignoramuses out there interpreting this as reflecting negatively on American technology. Informed observers might interpret the German "super weapon" efforts as more like acts of desperation in the face of overwhelming Allied military power. Which does not take away from the ingenuity.

I have been reading about this aircraft and other experimental aircraft with fascination since I was about 12. That includes the even more fascinating saga of American advanced aircraft, missile, and rocket designs. So my defense of the the program comes from a many decades fascination with this subject.

Posted by Cynicism Inc 2009-07-01 19:25|| 2009-07-01 19:25|| Front Page Top

#21 We're in agreement then.
(It's just like me to find myself in agreement with cynics, btw.)
Harry Turtldove's alt-history World War, in which a force of advanced but hardly invincible aliens invadethe Earth in the middle of World War 2, has many examples of brilliant historical and technical extrapolation. The aliens arrive in June, 1942 and the nations of the Earth set aside their various squabbles to confront the common enemy. Since the aliens have supersonic jets and SAMs, there is little point in going ahead with the bombers and piston engine fighters that took up such a large percentage of the production and engineering resources in the real universe of WW2. Advanced projects of every kind suddenly have the highest priority. Goddard and the Cal-Tech team provide crucial assistance to von Braun and the V-2 is operational by early 1943. Goddard's own missiles, an amalgam of the V-2 and his own ideas, are operational a few months later. The British Gloster Meteor team, working on a shoestring at a backwater aero company, suddenly find themselves the beneficiaries of the entire British aeronautical community. An aircraft very likely the Ho-229 makes an appearance in the series and enhanced models of the Me-263, 262, Gloster Meteor, and Bell P-59 are definitely on hand.
Turtledove is a professional historian. His research is amazingly detailed and accurate and his extrapolation wholly plausible, if one can swallow the alien invasion premise in the first place.
One example: American ground troops are mentioned as having huge numbers of .50 machine guns. Turtledove doesn't spell it out, but this would indeed have been the case if most fighter and all bomber production had been halted overnight, since each of these used anywhere from 4 to 13 such guns. With no aircraft to put them in, the guns would have been available to other forces.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2009-07-01 20:46|| 2009-07-01 20:46|| Front Page Top

#22 hmmm. All I know about ME-262 I learned from Blue Öyster Cult

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2009-07-01 20:51|| 2009-07-01 20:51|| Front Page Top

23:25 CrazyFool
23:18 Old Patriot
22:59 tipover
22:41 Procopius2k
22:37 Frank G
22:35 Frank G
22:29 Frank G
22:26 Play4Keeps
22:12 SteveS
22:11 WTF
22:08 Gabby
21:37 no mo uro
21:36 Broadhead6
21:28 badanov
20:51 Frank G
20:50 JosephMendiola
20:49 Skunky Glins 5***
20:48 Pappy
20:46 Atomic Conspiracy
20:42 JosephMendiola
20:41 Pappy
20:41 JosephMendiola
20:23 Angeash Mussolini9154
20:11 Broadhead6
Merry-Go-Blog