The source of the idea that the Horten was a stealth aircraft is the oft-repeated ‘fact’ that the Horten would have been 30% (or 40%, or 80%, depending on who you ask) less visible to UK radar (but not anyone else’s).

For some reason (probably because it made for a better story) Northrop and/or National Geographic modelled it at great expense using ‘Battle of Britain’ period Chain Home frequencies (6 to 13m wavelengths), which later sources assumed to be contemporary. These were obsolete at the time of the Horten’s appearance, and had been long superseded by the AMES 7 GCI system, of a much higher frequency. I have just edited Wiki.

Was it in fact stealthy at all?

Although I know nothing of the internal workings and politics of the Third Reich towards the end of the war, from a technical development point of view it looks like there was a scramble to gain a contract for the next ‘wonder weapon’, the one at would snatch victory from the jaws etc.

There was nothing particularly new, it’s much more a series – a flurry – of hasty mock ups and prototypes based on internationally understood theories that had not been completely thought through – essentially an over – acceleration of the usual process that goes from thesis, through iterations of technical memo, design study, model testing, which could elsewhere take a decade or more. So a lot of things emerged which seemed ‘ahead of their time’, but which were imperfectly conceived and developed.

On the face of it this is the ‘bleedin obvious’, but perhaps the ‘so close to a Nazi victory through superior science’ believers need it spelled out.

Agreed. Further dormitories for the Cambridge and district ‘Silicon Fen’ is going to be an absolute and total shambles – making an already under-sized, dangerous and congested (frequently ‘broken’) road, the A14 between the four-lane and the M11 past Cambridge – completely un-navigable, for want of a better word. There has to be a transport plan, and a radical one, before this idea will work. A new railway, for example. Or use the runways, and have a couple of A-380’s shuttling to Marshall’s.. (second one not so serious).

I shouldn’t rise to it but I am.

Stations of a type that carried the codename Freya first appeared in 1938, so W-W would not have seen them in 1936, when he went to Germany “to gain more information on Freya and Wurzburg radars” as you claimed. Yes there was a demonstration of ship detection in 1935. What Reginald Victor Jones did in the Second World War, though impressive, is irrelevant to your contention.

You seem very keen to meet reasoned argument with half-truths and untruths (the cavity magnetron), distortions (W-W in Germany) and irrelevant misdirections (RV Jones) loosely strung together. You will find that you will need to do better if you want to take on established views on this forum (in itself a laudable aim).

I have been indulging in your pastime of ‘research after the fact’. When you have finished reading about the cavity magnetron you might be interested in the work of the GPO, including a paper published on the interference effects of radio waves reflected from aircraft in 1932. Because the British post office isn’t as sexy as those cool-sounding German names you might not be interested, of course. Before that, the UK NPL was using reflected, pulsed radio emissions as rangefinders in 1931. Even before that, Cambridge University were bouncing radio waves off the ionosphere to measure its stratification. So, where do we begin? Maybe James Clerk Maxwell?

Hopefully you can see how easy it was, in the above paragraph, for me to selectively gather information that viewed uncritically could be used to support a fallacious argument (in this case, that the British alone invented radar). At least I used facts in my list.

I agree no one person or nation invented radar. But I contend your points of fact.

I have a programme idea – how about “Forum.. when egos collide”. A bit like Dallas, with larger-than life villains, laughter, tears, dastardly plotting and dark secrets. It’ll run and run.

Thanks John!

Well I live and learn. Would still be interested in what they were up to – beyond putting these in high velocity zones. As I say, what you”d demonstrate about a full size aircraft would limited, to say the least.

Please can you pass on the source of these? I am putting together a book on aerodynamic history and if these whole-aircraft (as opposed to semi span) tests are explained anywhere it would be of great interest to me.

Thanks again – and the OP and Sabrejet. I stand corrected – but baffled. The horizontally mounted one bottom left makes sense, but the sideways P-80 still doesn’t.

Not convinced.. yet. Semispans were flown, yes – as here; http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050019378.pdf

Just to set things straight, with apologies for the drift. Watson-Watt may have visited Germany in 1936, but if he went to look at Freya and Wurzburg radars he would have been disappointed as he was several years too early. Where is your made-up history ‘well documented’? ‘Meanwhile’ (as you put it) he had practically demonstrated the radio location of an aircraft in 1935.

To get back a little more to the thread, the Spitfire was operational for the duration, served in many roles and theatres, remained effective against the opposition through development that increased performance and armourment throughout the war (the actual war, not just the bit after the failure to defend Pearl Harbour). It was pretty good, and not even slightly American. You’ll just have to get over it, Merlin2

(It was arguably a little bit Canadian, however)