PHOTOS: "Hitler's Stealth Fighter"

National Geographic ^ | June 25, 2009 | Linda Reynolds

[Arec Barrwin]

ON TV Hitler's Stealth Fighter airs Sunday, June 28, at 9 p.m. ET/PT on the National Geographic Channel. Preview Hitler's Stealth Fighter >>

July 25, 2009--At a Northrop Grumman facility in California, top stealth-plane experts admire their handiwork in late 2008—a full-size, though flightless, replica of a Horten 2-29, aka Hitler's stealth fighter, created for a documentary airing June 28 on the National Geographic Channel. (Read the full story.)

The team tested the re-created Nazi jet against World War II-style radar. With its radar-resistant design and 600-mile-an-hour (970-kilometer-an-hour) speed, the team concluded, the Ho 2-29 would have allowed British antiaircraft forces only 9 minutes to respond, versus 18 with a conventional World War II fighter.

Had Hitler's stealth fighter made it into mass production, the plane could have changed to course of the war in Europe, experts say. (Interactive: Explore Hitler's stealth fighter.)

(National Geographic News is owned by the National Geographic Society, which part-owns the National Geographic Channel.)

— Photograph by Linda Reynolds/Flying Wing Films

[TalonDJ]

They were way ahead on all the aircraft designs, including a forward swept bomber, the v-2, some ramjet rotor affairs

If those were so advanced why does no one use 2 out of 3 of those? We had helicopters then too. The first helicopter medical evacuation too place during the war with an American helicopter. And our bomber designs made theirs look like toys. Heck our prop fighters were so bad @$$ they regularly shot down nazi jet fighters. 'Way ahead on all aircraft designs' they were not.

[TalonDJ]

The 1950's movie "War of the Worlds" showed footage of a flying-wing jet aircraft that was part of the US air force.

And was 'not a rousing success'.

[TalonDJ]

The Germans had the most advanced weaponry of the war

'Most advanced' is highly missleading. Many weapons systems that are better on paper have proven far less effect then alternatatives. Besides in many areas we were on par or ahead of them.

[PapaBear3625]

Actually what really might have changed the Air War in Europe would have been the ME-262 being mass produced and given a longer range. Of course if that happened Germany still didn’t have the pilots or the fuel to fly them toward the war’s end.

Germany's problem was that her experienced pilots kept getting shot down faster than new pilots could be trained. If they had a lot of ME-262's, then more German pilots would have survived dogfights.

If Germany had mass-produced ME-262s starting in 1942, and had stationed them in France to intercept and shoot down the British and American bombers, then German industrial capacity would have been better preserved. With 262s protecting German attack aircraft and shooting down British anti-sub aircraft, they could have gone after the shipping convoys that supplied Britain.

[TalonDJ]

The Spruce Goose is an American example.

You are confusing 'failed' with 'got cancelled'. The Spruce Goose was rendered obsolite but changed technologies and war conditions. The same thing happened to a lot of other ideas that did not 'fail'.

[FastCoyote]

‘Way ahead on all aircraft designs’ they were not.

The B-2 Bomber is a ripoff of the Hortens bomber, the Atlas missile comes from the V-2 (in other words our whole mission to the moon), we outfitted (P58s?)with ramjets, which are the precursor of our scramjet program and the Me262 was certainly ahead of our projects. But oh well, you are the smrtest guy in the world so I guess you know everything.

[sig226]

Can you offer some reasons why the Spruce Goose was not adopted?

[TalonDJ]

The design requirements of the Spruce Goose involved the neeed for a heavy lift transport with very long range. Since the U-boats got surpressed and Britain did not fall an aircraft of that size and range was not longer critically needed for mass transport of troops.

[GOPJ]

Yeah, it would have delayed the war long enough for us to nuke Germany back to the stone age.

Good one!

[TalonDJ]

The B-2 Bomber is a ripoff of the Hortens bomber,

Northrop built his first flying wing in 1929. The B-2 was the result of many decades of work in a straight line back to that first attempt. So much so that they brought in the aged Northrop shortly before he died to see the B-2 when it was still highly classified. Just because something is similarly shaped does not mean it is a 'ripoff'.

the Atlas missile comes from the V-2 (in other words our whole mission to the moon),

Yes, the V-2 was more advanced. But we were hardly ignorant of liquid fueled rockets. You could say the WAC corporal was as much a predecessor to the Atlas as the V-2.

we outfitted (P58s?)with ramjets, which are the precursor of our scramjet program and the Me262 was certainly ahead of our projects.

The Me-262 used a turbo jet. Which the English invented and flew first. ramjets were invented by the French and initially developed on rockets by Russians. The Germans only half heartedly did anything with them and could not get them to work.

Any other 'facts' you want to trot out?

[sig226]

The specification is the main reason why I call it a failure. The plane could carry one Sherman Tank. The ships that could have been built for the same cost would have carried almost 7,000 of them. If England had fallen, it would have been even more useless. Ships can at least hold position with an escort to defend them. A plane has to land or crash.

The design failure was endemic. It was an interesting idea, but it would never have accomplished anything.

[TalonDJ]

Yes, as a engineering project or as a ‘weapon system’ it was a failure. But as an aircraft it met its design criteria. It was not a design failure because it it mathced its design and it was designed to to just what it was required to do. The failure was in the up front definition of the requirement. I am splitting hairs I know, but I do engineering requirements for a living. If a company is contracted to make XYZ for the military they do just that. If the product never met up to what it was suppose to then it was a failure. But if it does what it was intended to do perfectly but fails operationally due to something that was not required then it is not the fault of the company or the design.

Hummers are a great example. A few years ago many people were cursing them for being flimsy crap and not protected well enough. Well they were using a light scouting and utility vehicle to do urban patrol in what was effectively a minefield. The design was never meant to do that and so naturally it did not perform well until it had all kinds or armor tacked on.

Oh, and even the C5 only can carry two tanks. The fact that it COULD carry a sherman was pretty darn impressive.

Its real failure was they only finished it after the war was over.