It's based on that Dr. Suess children's story. It's impossible to respect Dr. Suess stories--anybody can come up with rhymes if one is allowed to just make up words.

Now, if "Horton Hears A Who" had been the story of a Luftelefant and his fanatical ex-Fallschirmjäger followers keeping Hitler's brain alive in a hidden mountain fortress in Paraguay--now, that would be entertainment.

Anyway, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that quite a few of your fanatical readers (I'm one) were already aware of this site:

Luft ' 46 - WWII German aircraft projects

A mini B2 designed by the nazis, interesting. Nice concept for a very high altitude aircraft, but it would be hell to control esp. if it reached Mach 1. By the way: "de Havilland" any relation to the aeronautical people?

I seem to remember that Newt Gingrich wrote a 'counterfactual novel about this stuff called 1946.

"Horton Hears a Who" and its author (Dr. Seuss) deserve some respect from libertarians - or at least a second look. Horton, who stands up to overwhelming public opinion in favour of his principles, embodies a libertarian ideal. Likewise, "Green Eggs and Ham" might be credited with putting the spark of libertarian thought into many a youngster (as with some of Dr. Seuss' other stories).

The critical debate over Horton as of late seems to centre on abortion, an issue that (in my opinion) likely does not relate back to Dr. Suess' intent for the story. The debate is nonetheless interesting given the lack of consensus between libertarians on that issue...

In any event, the following link provides a perspective on the story:

What the fuck is the kangaroo’s problem? Horton ain’t hurting nobody, but that jackass marsupial just can’t let it go. Is Dr. Seuss a libertarian? Cause everyone in the book but Horton and the Whos sure act like nanny statists engaged in a metaphor for the War on Drugs.

http://tbotcotw.com/archives/2008/03/a-minor-quibble-with-horton-hears-a-who

I love Dr Seuss.

I have a special love for McGelligot's Pool (inspiring youngsters to keep hoping in the face of adult cynicism) and The Lorax (the only good environmental fable ever written), both of which have language of a profoundly inventive beauty.

What's more, look up his wartime "propaganda" work; wonderfully inventive stuff, even if these days it's a little sensitive.

A very great writer indeed.

I've always been quite partial to the Northrop B-36...

Raiders of The Lost Ark?

Cheers

I think the movie you are thinking of is "Who hears a Horton?"

Dale,
I suspect you mean the Northrop B-35 rather than the Convair B-36 - "The Aluminium Overcast - which of course did go into service.

The B-35 had certain issues with control and development was protracted. Essentially it was overtaken by more conventional designs that were easier to implement. Jack Northrop did just live to see (he was given special security clearance) a model of the B-2 which I seem to recall has the same wingspan as the B-35 to (I think) within inches.

I second Mike as to Luft 46. Some of the Blohm & Voss asymetrical designs are just super weird. Of course, if you want to shoot down this stuff then there's always Shturmovik '46 too.

In a perhaps similar vein I also recommend this.

Another alternate future-that-might-have-been:

Man Conquers Space

In March 1952, Colliers Magazine began a series of articles by a team of 23 contributors, headed by the German-American rocket scientist Wernher von Braun. The team of experts, scientists and space-advocates used the magazine to vividly illustrate their dramatic vision of the near future, and how humans could exploit the seemingly endless possibilities found in space....

This film is based on an alternative timeline to the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo era of reality - it is based on the premise that all that had been proposed in the early 1950's in Colliers actually came to pass - and sooner than they expected.

Videos here.

Don't forget Jack Northrop's 1929 flying wing experiments--the N-1M, and his later planes : XP-56, MX-334, and MX324/33.

Yes, you are indeed correct and my memory was off by one on the Northrop bomber. To be a real nitpicker, we were both wrong as there were only XB-35 and YB-35. Some were converted to YB-35B, and YRB-49A jet versions.

My favorite description of the Peacemaker B-36 was "6 turning, 4 burning"...

I once saw an aerial photo which must have included most of the 13 YB-35's lined up at the Northrop plant. Talk about a surreal image!

Bill,
N-1M was 1939 not 1929.

Dale,
I have heard that a Peacemaker could, at high altitude (and they had a good ceiling), out-fly a MiG-15 due to their lower wing-loading which made them more maneourvarable in that regime. Know anything about this curious (possible) fact.

One problem with the B-36 (much lamented by crew chiefs) was the number of spark-plugs that had to be changed! There were others.

But 10 engines! Wow!

Nick, thanks, for the correction.

For photos of the MX-334 go to:

http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/database/aircraft/getimage.htm?id=7238

For the MX-324/33 go to:

http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/flying%20wings/northrop%20war.htm

Reminds my of my disappointment in learning that the movie Glory Road wasn't based on the Heinlein novel.

Lovely pic of an amazing 'plane. Hadn't heard of the 229 before, only the 7 and its stealth capability.