Author Topic: First pass speed of sound (Read 1842 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #15 on:** July 12, 2004, 01:52:24 PM »

How fast would the original straight wing F86 have been?

hogenbor · « **Reply #16 on:** July 12, 2004, 01:52:46 PM »

Damn guys, do you have to keep on rewriting my history books?!?

With Widewing's obsession for detail I feel inclined to believe that the XP-86 was indeed the first to break the sound barrier. But why in all my years of reading and surfing did I NEVER come across this information? No doubt many witnesses are still alive, makes me wonder it this is reason of one of those Discovery channel programs where they poke at certain well established 'facts' (like who shot down Manfred von Richthofen).

And Widewing, just curious, all the data you can come up with, where the h*ll do you get it from? I know of some of your military background but are you an aviation historian in your spare time or what?

Widewing · « **Reply #17 on:** July 12, 2004, 02:08:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
How fast would the original straight wing F86 have been?

There never existed a straight wing F-86. NAA built the FJ-1 Fury for the Navy. The USAAF ordered a version of the Fury. However, NAA proposed incorporating the knowledge gained from captured swept wing design data to both the Navy and the USAAF. The Navy declined, but the Air Force told NAA to go ahead with the proposal. What emerged from the NAA factory was the XP-86 with 35 degrees of wing sweep. On the other hand, the NAVY received their FJ-1s, with their 542 mph max speed and a critical Mach of about 0.85-0.86. Clearly, the USAAF got the better deal. This is evident because the Navy later ordered a navalized version of the F-86E, designated the FJ-2.

My regards,

Widewing

Hammy · « **Reply #18 on:** July 12, 2004, 02:09:22 PM »

If i EVER need a lawyer, Widewing is my man!!!!!!!!!!!!!

very impressed matey

Grimm · « **Reply #19 on:** July 12, 2004, 02:28:32 PM »

Thanks for the write up Widewing

It would be safe to say that Yeager flight was deemed the "offical" breaking, and since it went on the books that way. There hasnt been any real push to change it. I can also see why considering the money involved in the Bell project.

Interesting stuff

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #20 on:** July 12, 2004, 02:35:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Widewing
There never existed a straight wing F-86. NAA built the FJ-1 Fury for the Navy. The USAAF ordered a version of the Fury. However, NAA proposed incorporating the knowledge gained from captured swept wing design data to both the Navy and the USAAF. The Navy declined, but the Air Force told NAA to go ahead with the proposal. What emerged from the NAA factory was the XP-86 with 35 degrees of wing sweep. On the other hand, the NAVY received their FJ-1s, with their 542 mph max speed and a critical Mach of about 0.85-0.86. Clearly, the USAAF got the better deal. This is evident because the Navy later ordered a navalized version of the F-86E, designated the FJ-2.

My regards,

Widewing

Everything I read so far said there was originally a straight wing F86 design. A design much much different than the Fury - the airforce never ordered any type of Fury. But the original F86 was to be straight winged. The swept wings were added to this design after NAA got the captured german research because the straight winged F86 design was projected to be too slow to meet air force requirements.

Widewing · « **Reply #21 on:** July 12, 2004, 02:41:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hogenbor
And Widewing, just curious, all the data you can come up with, where the h*ll do you get it from? I know of some of your military background but are you an aviation historian in your spare time or what?

I have been writing aviation history for quite some time. I've been published in various magazines, journals and newsletters. I received a degree in History (United States Studies) in 1975. However, unless you add a teaching certificate, a history degree is basically useless for earning a living. So, back to school after the miltary. I am now a Senior Project Engineer for a small high-tech division of a major corporation.

I did a great deal of research. I also had access to Al Blackburn's manuscript months before it was published. I reviewed it for the publisher and they put a portion of the review on the back of the dust jacket. Al spent years tying all the facts together into a cohesive story. He was also a test pilot for NAA at Muroc during the early 1950s.

When it was released in 1999, Aces Wild knocked the USAF right on its ear. Their official historian, Dr. Hallion, tried in vain to refute the claim that Welch was first. However, Hallion's argument was based upon a time line that so flawed as to be laughable. No one took Hallion's retort as anything beyond wishful thinking. Eventually, the USAF revised their claim to the XS-1's Mach 1 crown to include the words: In Level Flight.

Basically, the USAF abandoned their outer defenses and have hunkered down in the castle of double-speak. The first is still the first, whether gravity assisted or otherwise.

My regards,

Widewing

Widewing · « **Reply #22 on:** July 12, 2004, 02:59:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Everything I read so far said there was originally a straight wing F86 design. A design much much different than the Fury - the airforce never ordered any type of Fury. But the original F86 was to be straight winged. The swept wings were added to this design after NAA got the captured german research because the straight winged F86 design was projected to be too slow to meet air force requirements.

Both the NA-140 (Navy) and NA-141 (USAF) were derived from the NA-134. Differences included a more slender fuselage for the NA-141. Both were to be powered by the GE J-35 engine. North American never built a straight wing XP-86. The order was revised long before manufacturing of the prototype began.

By the way, a check of facts shows that the FJ-1 did establish an American jet speed record of 0.87 Mach in level flight in early 1947.

My regards,

Widewing

ra · « **Reply #23 on:** July 12, 2004, 03:07:21 PM »

Quote

Their official historian, Dr. Hallion, tried in vain to refute the claim that Welch was first.

I took an aviation history class taught by Dr. Hallion in college. He always struck me as a bit of a lightweight, with a very shallow knowledge of aviation. I still feel the same when I see him interviewed in aviation documentaries.

ra

mosgood · « **Reply #24 on:** July 12, 2004, 03:23:58 PM »

As far as the movie "The Right Stuff" goes..... I don't care.. still a damn good flick.

peregrin · « **Reply #25 on:** July 12, 2004, 03:49:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hogenbor
Damn guys, do you have to keep on rewriting my history books?!?

But why in all my years of reading and surfing did I NEVER come across this information?

If you do an experiment without measuring the data in question, you don't get to claim your results. As there was no accurate measurment made of Welch's speed, we can assume he went faster that the speed of sound but we can't know. Thus, the first recorded flight faster than the speed of sound is in the X-1.
--Peregrine.

rod367th · « **Reply #26 on:** July 12, 2004, 04:55:49 PM »

Was a story in papers 3 or 4 years ago, About german pilot. Diving away from 4 p51's. Now going by memory of newspaper story, But as I remembered 1 p51 pilot was in chute so was 1 262 pilot. 2nd 262 pilot dove away from p51's and pilots in chutes heard a large explosion. Pilot spoke on how he lost parts of his 262 and landed it back at his base but plane was to damaged to repair, And he believes that he broke sound barrier. Was a very long story with names and facts supporting his belief. This story was posted on bbs of warbirds. Not hard to believe that a 262 broke sound barrier in a dive. BUT who real cares who was first?

I hold a couple of world records, and am proud of them as if I was first to set record. And I can't tell you who was first to set record. ( I bet some of AH'ers hold same records as I

)

Widewing · « **Reply #27 on:** July 12, 2004, 07:00:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by peregrin
If you do an experiment without measuring the data in question, you don't get to claim your results. As there was no accurate measurment made of Welch's speed, we can assume he went faster that the speed of sound but we can't know. Thus, the first recorded flight faster than the speed of sound is in the X-1.
--Peregrine.

Which is why North American never made any public claim to the record.

Nonetheless, for 30 years the aviation world recognized the speed record set by the Me 209 V-1 in 1939 (469.22 mph) and it remained "official" for a great many years. And not because it wasn't eclipsed by a great many faster aircraft, but because no one bothered to go thru the hassle of making an "official" challange. Not until 1969 did anyone decide to take the speed title (Greenamyer's F8F-2 at 483.041 mph).

As to whether Welch beat Yeager, that issue is almost beyond dispute. One doesn't need to get wet to realize that it's raining. To quote one test pilot (a personal friend), "Every test pilot in the flight-test community knew that Welch was the winner. Whether the egg-heads agreed didn't matter to us."

My regards,

Widewing

Wilbus · « **Reply #28 on:** July 13, 2004, 03:14:53 AM »

Uhm Widewing acording to you the critical mach of the 262 is well bellow the critical mach of a Spitfire, which I don't believe at all as it would mean a 262 could be outdived by a 262.

No, you CAN NOT be SURE the 262 never broke the sound barrier.

"The other" pilots who claimed they did it were in prop planes, and a prop plane can't go through the sound barrier as the prop, once the plane reaches a certain speed, acts more like a break.

Quote

In a discussion with Wolfgang Späte, a well known test pilot and colonel in the German Luftwaffe, who became involved in the Me163 programme as early as 1942 and then later, after the war, carried out supersonic flights in France, we established that the sound barrier must have been broken on G.Mutke's flight in the Me262. This is based on the fact that the aircraft became uncontrollable during a strong and short buffeting phase and then control was regained, while the airspeed indicator remained on the stop at 1100 km/h, and both engines suffered a flame-out. This was published in the report of the meeting.

One of the main points often repeated during later discussions was that the Me 262 was a subsonic aircraft and that neither the wing-sweep nor the wing thickness were suitable for supersonic flight. The wing-sweep was always considered to be a critical factor but this was later proved incorrect as the Bell X-1 and the F 104 were supersonic aircraft and had straight wings ,i.e. zero wing-sweep. The maximum thickness ot the aerofoil (about 11% for the Me 262) also plays an important role and is one of the reasons that when an aircraft will result. This was the case with Mutke's flight on 9 April 1945 when the Me 262 Weisse 9 was so badly damaged that it was no longer repairable

Lots more interesting stuff to read from the page, all of it makes sence and has got a good point. Also, MACH 1 is quite a bit easier to reach at 30,000 feet then it is at sea level.

In my Book Mutke was the first to go through the sound barrier and live to tell the tale.

Wilbus · « **Reply #29 on:** July 13, 2004, 03:19:19 AM »

Me 262 A-1 Pilot's Handbook, ref: F-SU-111-ND dated 10 January 1946. Issued by Headquarters AIR Material Command, Wright Field, Dayton, Ohio. Classification cancelled; 3 June 1955.

So it seems even the US admited the 262 was capeble of supersonic flight if pushed hard enough in a dive.