Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: BigB717 on July 11, 2004, 03:43:00 PM
-
hey guys , a while back i was reading a post about somthing but as i looked through the other replies from others, someone had started a conversation about who truley was the first to pass the speed of sound.... There was a post with a link ...this link was to the man who truley was the frist to reach the speed of sound, other then "Chuck Yeager", does anyone know of this link or some info on what i am talking about???
i think it was the f-86 !?
it was some time ago..... i dont remember the guys name
all help appreciated :cool: thanks:aok
-
George Welch in an F-86.
The leather panties boys will tell you that Me-262's broke the sound barrier routinely.
ra
-
Originally posted by ra
George Welch in an F-86.
The leather panties boys will tell you that Me-262's broke the sound barrier routinely.
ra
Yeah, they did. Of course, that was right before it hit the ground.
-
Originally posted by Mathman
Yeah, they did. Of course, that was right before it hit the ground.
yup :aok
-
All I know for sure is that it was NOT in a 262.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
All I know for sure is that it was NOT in a 262.
if it wasnt for the war, and all the allied bombing, im sure a german plane, probably a later model Me262 would have broke the sound barrier, BUT, germany lost the war.......and well its history now :)
-
George S. Welch, North American Aviation test pilot and 16 kill ace pushed the XP-86 beyond Mach 1 in a dive on October 1, 1947. He repeated this on October 14, just 30 minutes before Yeager piloted the XS-1 through Mach 1 in level flight (of course, the XS-1 needed to be hauled to altitude under a B-29 and was rocket powered). Not only did Welch and the XP-86 do it first, but Welch did so on the plane's maiden flight! Welch was also the first man to exceed Mach 1 in level flight flying an air-breathing aircraft, the YF-100 Super Sabre (there was no XF-100), and did that on its first flight too.
Here's a profile of the XP-86.
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/XP-86profile.JPG)
To read about Welch, go toThe Amazing George Welch (http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Welch2.html)
This article was reprinted in this months addition of the CAF's First Observation Detachment newsletter.
For the whole, almost unbelievable story of the race for Mach 1, pick up a copy of Al Blackburn's ground breaking book, Aces Wild. Al was also an NAA test pilot and flew with or personally knew all of the characters, including Welch and Yeager.
My regards,
Widewing
-
All I know for sure is that it was NOT in a 262.
Kwel, how do you know that?
Here (http://mach1.luftarchiv.de/) you go, interesting read.
-
That link has already been posted Wilbus....It's an interesting read but I don't believe it.
The 262's wing was much too thick for supersonic flight...more likely a 163 could have done it if it had more fuel to burn.
-
mach 0.92 seems to be the max in AHII for all jet/rocket planes :(
lol:lol
-
All I know for sure is that it was NOT in a 262.
Well, you can't know it for sure, noone really can actually. Kind of a silly comment...
The wing too thick, not sure about that, if you've read the intire post under the link I posted (believe I posted it last time too) he describes pretty much every thing that happens before super sonic flight, he then describes what happens (and happened to Chuck Yeager) right after Mach 1 was passed. The 262 pilto experienced alot of buffeting and shaking, enough shaking to destroy the plane, he survived only because the he stayed in the trans sonic region for a very very short time and thus gave the plane little time to shake and brake apart.
Believe it or not is up to you, but you can never be "sure" that is wasn't the 262.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Well, you can't know it for sure, noone really can actually. Kind of a silly comment...
The wing too thick, not sure about that, if you've read the intire post under the link I posted (believe I posted it last time too) he describes pretty much every thing that happens before super sonic flight, he then describes what happens (and happened to Chuck Yeager) right after Mach 1 was passed. The 262 pilto experienced alot of buffeting and shaking, enough shaking to destroy the plane, he survived only because the he stayed in the trans sonic region for a very very short time and thus gave the plane little time to shake and brake apart.
Believe it or not is up to you, but you can never be "sure" that is wasn't the 262.
I know this; the critical Mach of the Me 262 was Mach 0.85, at Mach 0.87 aero stresses would rapidly damage and eventually destroy the aircraft. Even the F-80 with its thinner section laminar flow wing was limited to an absolute max of Mach 0.88. Drop testing of wind tunnel models of the F-80 established that the terminal velocity was 0.94 Mach, a speed that would have ripped off the wings of an actual Shooting Star. Neither the Me 262 or Me 163 could approach the speed of sound. No first generation jet fighter could.
NACA's Walter Williams reviewed captured German flight test data that established the maximum speed attainable without loss of control was Mach 0.82 for the Me 163, and Mach 0.85 for the Me 262. Buffeting is NOT and indicator of transonic flight. Airspeed indicators of the time were wildly inaccurate when localized transonic airflow would form shock waves ahead of the pitot tube. The fact that Hans Guido Mutke believes he went supersonic only adds his name to the many hundreds of pilots who made the same claim during WWII. The fact remains that the 262 was not physically capable of speeds beyond 0.87 Mach.
So, I am absolutely SURE that no Me 262 ever even came close to Mach one.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I am taking it that Yeager's flight was fully documented and was there for the "offical" breaking of the barrier?
If the F86 did so before hand, it must not have been documented and is based on a pilot report?
I guess this doesnt make much sense to credit Yeager for being the first, if many guys did it before him. I hope Widewing can pipe in here with a bit of an explanation. :)
-
Apparently the reports of Welch breaking the sound barrier were from observers on the ground that heard the loud "explosion" that turned out to be a sonic boom.
MiG
-
Originally posted by Grimm
I am taking it that Yeager's flight was fully documented and was there for the "offical" breaking of the barrier?
If the F86 did so before hand, it must not have been documented and is based on a pilot report?
I guess this doesnt make much sense to credit Yeager for being the first, if many guys did it before him. I hope Widewing can pipe in here with a bit of an explanation. :)
If someone were up on murder charges facing the weight of evidence equal to that supporting Welch as being first, they would almost certainly be convicted.
You be the judge.
Motive: Welch clearly demonstrated a desire to push the Sabre through Mach 1. His discussions with the design engineers at North American and with his friends and family are proof positive of this.
Opportunity: Welch had two opportunities to dive the XP-86 prior to Yeager’s record flight.
Weapon: There can be no doubt that the XP-86 could exceed Mach 1 in a dive. This was officially established on November 13, 1947. There were no changes made to the aircraft that could improve performance between October 1 and November 13. So, there is NO DOUBT that the XP-86 was capable of supersonic flight from day one.
Witnesses: There were hundreds, if not thousands of people who felt and heard the two sonic booms of October 1 and 14. Some have since testified to hearing the booms. In addition, we have the testimony of those who spoke with Welch where he admitted to making unauthorized supersonic dives.
Additional evidence: Welch’s flight logbook contains entries for all supersonic flights, including those not authorized. "Mach Jump": Welch was the first to report this phenomenon. No one had observed "Mach Jump" prior to the flight. Yet, today it is considered as decisive evidence of supersonic flight (according to several scientists at Dryden).
Summation: Welch announced his intention to dive the XP-86 through the sound barrier. Welch had at least two opportunities to do so. Welch was flying an airplane that was easily capable of exceeding Mach 1 in a dive. Chase pilot Bob Chilton had his P-82 pounded by a sonic boom while waiting for Welch (Chilton was orbiting below). Welch told several credible people that he had flown through the sonic barrier. There were hundreds of witnesses, including one Major General and other high ranking military and civilian personnel who heard and felt the sonic booms. Welch witnesses a phenomenon that only someone who had exceeded Mach 1 would see. He reported it before any other pilot, he could not simply invent an unanticipated dynamic behavior. Welch's logbook lists the two flights as high Mach (the same terms used for the official speed runs) for October 1, and 14. Secretary of the USAF Symington discussed Welch's unauthorized supersonic excursions with NAA's Kindelburger (documented in Kindelburger's personal papers). Symington was very concerned that the XP-86 had upstaged the very expensive XS-1 program. He had been informed of Welch's flight by several sources, including Larry Bell. At Muroc, it was common knowledge that the XP-86 had already eased past Mach 1.
Official speed runs were conducted by NAA with NACA in November of '47 (about a month after Yeager's "official" run) and officially established that the XP-86 was able to exceed Mach 1 in a dive (with full control, mind you).
In my opinion, the evidence is overwhelming that Welch and the XP-86 were the first.
By the way, Geoffrey de Havilland was killed on September 27, 1946 when his DH.108 Swallow came apart at Mach 0.88 due to excessive pitch control while trying to recover from a dive passing 8,000 feet. John Derry, flying a much modified DH.108 did manage to exceed Mach 1 on September 6, 1948 during a dive from 45,000 feet. Unlike the Sabre, the DH.108 was completely out of control and Derry was fortunate to survive. Derry was the first Brit to exceed Mach 1 in a British built aircraft. However, Brit test pilot Roland Beaumont was the first Brit to fly faster than the speed of sound.... He was also flying the XP-86 at Muroc (now Edwards AFB). That event happened on May 21, 1948.
My regards,
Widewing
-
How fast would the original straight wing F86 have been?
-
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?
-
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
-
If i EVER need a lawyer, Widewing is my man!!!!!!!!!!!!!
very impressed matey :aok
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
As far as the movie "The Right Stuff" goes..... I don't care.. still a damn good flick.:aok
-
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.
-
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 :))
-
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
-
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.
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.
-
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.
(http://mach1.luftarchiv.de/w_3.jpg)
So it seems even the US admited the 262 was capeble of supersonic flight if pushed hard enough in a dive.
-
Originally posted by ra
You should read it more carefully. They are talking about the speed of the airflow around the aircraft.
maybe you should too?
it says that once the speed of sound is exceeded, the plane regains control....
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
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.
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.
:rolleyes: You Luftwaffe fanatics will never let go of your delusions, will you?
You post a page from a document that clearly defines the standard conditions and effects of compressibility, NOT transonic flight, and expect that to be taken as proof the 262 was capable of exceeding Mach one. The tip of a bullwhip can exceed Mach one, so is the bullwhip as a whole supersonic? LOLOLOLOLOL
As to the Spitfire being faster in a dive than the 262, without its prop the answer is yes. A late-model Spitfire was dived from 44,000 feet in 1946. As it reached 25,000 feet the drag rise on the prop resulted in the prop hub failing. All five blades flew off into space. Continuing down, out of control, the Spitfire attained Mach 0.90 before increasing density and temperature slowed its physical and relative velocity to that where the pilot was able to regain control. After a deadstick landing, the aircraft was examined and promptly written off as being too damaged to repair.
NAA's XP-86 had a considerably lower chord to thickness ratio wing, of far greater sweep (and a laminar flow design to boot). The XP-86 had much lower drag too. Even then, about all it could manage was Mach 1.04 in a sustained dive. Yet, you expect us to accept that the 262, with its wing twist and tail flutter issues as well as its far greater drag, could come within 3% or 4% of the Sabre's speed in a dive?! It's laughable.
Here's an interesting discussion on WWII fighters and the sound barrier. It demonstrates the extremes of stupidity as well as provides excellent data and reasoning. Have a look, and read the whole thread. Take note of the speeds shown for the Spitfire and P-47 as well as why the 262 could never exceed Mach one.
Axis History Forum (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=15725)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Overlag
maybe you should too?
it says that once the speed of sound is exceeded, the plane regains control....
No, it's talking about the effects of compressibility. 1,000 km/hr is nowhere near Mach one at any altitude where the Me 262 could attain that speed. Hell, it was common to exceed 1,000 km/hr diving a P-47. Test pilot Herb Fisher exceeded 600 mph routinely doing dive tests with a P-47D. However, at 20,000 feet, that is barely above 0.82 Mach, a long, long way from Mach one.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I have heard two reasons why Welch's accomplishment wasn't recognized by the USAF. For one, it wasn't approved and would have seriously taken the glory away from their X plane and Yeager. Secondly, I have also heard they didn't want the Russians to know the full capabilities of the Sabre.
-
Whats more significant supersonic only in a dive or supersonic in level flight - granted B29 ride up and short duration rocket power only?
Did sabres use supersonic dives to evade mig 15s in Korea?
-
Read story about guy breaking the sound barrier in a Me163.The
163 was hooked up to a Heinkel 111,and taken to a high altitude,then released.Being it didn't have to burn it's fuel to gain altitude,it was able to use the extra fuel to generate a speed sufficient to break the sound barrier.As I recall,the pilot lost all control for a period of time,and was just able to gain control back in time to avert disaster.I don't recall the pilots name,maybe Wilbuz can help on that.I seem to remember reading a story by a F4U pilot,saying that he broke the sound barrier in a prop plane.I'm no expert,and I don't know if that's even possible.
IronDog
-
Before you believe tales about this or that WWII fighter breaking the sound barrier, keep in mind that Geoffrey DeHavilland died trying to break the sound barrier in late 1946 in a DH-108, which was specifically designed for the purpose. Do you believe that DeHavilland would have bothered creating an all-new design if there was already a supersonic design in existence? And that they would have failed where the earlier designs succeeded?
ra
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Did sabres use supersonic dives to evade mig 15s in Korea?
Yes they did. Mig-15s were not able to go supersonic.
-
The 163 never carried enough fuel to brake the sound barrier, even though they launched it from a 111 it still didn't have anough fuel.
As for Prop planes such as the F4u, no prop plane is capeble of going through the sound barrier simply because, once a certain speed is reached, the prop it self acts as a brake instead of as a pulling prop.
No, it's talking about the effects of compressibility. 1,000 km/hr is nowhere near Mach one at any altitude where the Me 262 could attain that speed.
Well the 262 in question was flying full speed and then put in a steep dive from 36,000 feet, up there MACH 1 is alot easier to get to then down low.
Widewing, You Luftwaffe fanatics will never let go of your delusions, will you?
Is that needed to make yourself feel good? That's pathetic IMO but I guess that's the only way you can feel really good about yourself.
Difference between me and you is that I keep an open mind, I don't know wether the 262 actually broke the barrier, however, I consider it a possibiltiy and untill someone flies a real 262 again and actually tries it, I will still consider it a possibility untill proven wrong. What I am pretty sure of though is that Yeager wasn't the first to exeed it, only the first to do so in level flight.
-
Wilbuz thanks for reply.Set me straight on that one.Guess my old feeble memory failed me again.:)
IronDog
-
My plessure Irondog :)
!
-
Originally posted by Widewing
:rolleyes: You Luftwaffe fanatics will never let go of your delusions, will you?
I can't help but making the remark that a slight bias towards American knowledge and equipment is evident in your posts Widewing, but I'm still impressed enough to believe all of your statements. Besides, you ARE American ;) No matter how many people WANT the 262 to be the first to go supersonic, this does not mean it really was. Still, it makes a good story.
With a keen interest in aviation but no technical background in it how can I ever comment on if it was likely that the 262 broke the sound barrier? It does not seem likely, but what do I know? Still I would vote for no. That having said, we have a flyable 262 around in Texas, as close to the original as we will ever get, but with much more powerful engines. Shall we ask them to try how fast it will go? (For those not in on irony, this is a rather poor joke)
I'd like to say that I'm not a Luftwaffe fanatic but the sometimes fantastic ideas and designs (born mostly out of desperation) that the Germans came up with really tickles the imagination. And no-one will refute that the U.S and the Soviet Union both made use of German knowledge in their jet and rocket programs.
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
I can't help but making the remark that a slight bias towards American knowledge and equipment is evident in your posts Widewing, but I'm still impressed enough to believe all of your statements. Besides, you ARE American ;) No matter how many people WANT the 262 to be the first to go supersonic, this does not mean it really was. Still, it makes a good story.
I admit that my remark was somewhat insensitive. I do tend to get short tempered with people who, rather than research the technology, accept speculation and uneducated observations of untrained (technically speaking) pilots as gospel. I have no stomach for such reasoning regardless of a person's national origin. A great many pilots have claimed to have broken the sound barrier due to observing strange behavior at high speeds. I know of one P-47 pilot who, to this very day, is convinced that his P-47 went supersonic. Despite being informed to the contrary, he argues that he "knows what he saw". Thus far, I have avoided telling him that he is a certified idiot. I have even gone as far as to have a former Republic test pilot try to explain why it was impossible. He hung up on the test pilot half-way thu the explanation.
I have seen similar "thickheaded" reasoning when it comes to the Luftwaffe. You know, the old "we were beat my numbers argument". Now, we know that the Luftwaffe was out-numbered towards the end of the war. However, Allied technology produced some of the finest aircraft of the war, piloted by better trained men. Yeah, German technology was fantastic. Yet, in many areas they were behind the western Allies.
There is much to admire Germany for, but let's not be fanatical about them as it blinds one to reality.
I have discussed the 262 question with friends who work at Dryden, people with doctorates in aeronautical engineering. Each one has stated that the Me 262 was no more capable of exceeding Mach one than the F-80 or Meteor. Although all were certainly fast aircraft compared to prop driven fighters of their generation, they were all utterly sub-sonic.
Yet, some people, like that P-47 pilot, will never accept facts that crush their personal delusions as if their very identity would be lost as a result.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
I have even gone as far as to have a former Republic test pilot try to explain why it was impossible. He hung up on the test pilot half-way thu the explanation.
Which only proves that thickheadedness can be found among all nationalities :D
I have seen similar "thickheaded" reasoning when it comes to the Luftwaffe. You know, the old "we were beat my numbers argument". Now, we know that the Luftwaffe was out-numbered towards the end of the war. However, Allied technology produced some of the finest aircraft of the war, piloted by better trained men. Yeah, German technology was fantastic. Yet, in many areas they were behind the western Allies.
There is much to admire Germany for, but let's not be fanatical about them as it blinds one to reality.
[/B]
Too true. Let's be realistic and open minded shall we? (Too much to hope for on this BBS). But please don't get worked up about people who confuse fact and fiction, they're not worth it. Everybody is entitled to an opinion and no matter what you say, some people will die being utterly convinced that the Me-262 or the P-47 for that matter broke the sound barrier, no matter how much reasoning you heap upon them. Personally, I don't care if they believe that a Fokker Dr-I did it.
That having said, what if the test pilot of the Texas 262's initiates a dive, runs into compression and breaks the sound barrier? As you say, experts have stated that it would be impossible. I wouldn't go that far. Extremely, extremely unlikely, yes. Impossible no. Why? Scientists are only human after all. Besides, leaves the 'Luftwaffe fanatics' a bit of hope.
Regards,
Ronald
-
I have seen similar "thickheaded" reasoning when it comes to the Luftwaffe. You know, the old "we were beat my numbers argument". Now, we know that the Luftwaffe was out-numbered towards the end of the war. However, Allied technology produced some of the finest aircraft of the war, piloted by better trained men. Yeah, German technology was fantastic. Yet, in many areas they were behind the western Allies. There is much to admire Germany for, but let's not be fanatical about them as it blinds one to reality.
Don't agree with all that but hey, we all have our opinions.
Germany didn't lose becaue they were outnumbered, they lost because their leaders were (thankfully) complete idiots.
I think both US and Germany created some of the finest planes of the war, however, I don't see many areas where US was ahead of Germany technology wise (when it comes to fighter planes), call it desperat atempts to create a war winning machine but the simple fact is that Germany were far ahead all other countries when it came to a great deal of stuff to do with aviation.
I am open minded, you can call me a Luftwaffe Fanatic if you like, it'll only make you look stupid but the thruth is the history is full of scientists" saying "this and that is impossible" and they have, pretty much every time, been proven wrong. First it was impossible to fly like the birds, then it was impossible to brake the sound barrier, then it was impossible to brake the soundbarrier with a land based veichle. Every new "sought out" invention have been called "impossible" by a great number of people and they've been proven wrong again and again.
Is it impossible for a 262 to brake the sound barrier? Pherhaps, we'll never know for sure untill someone takes it up high and tries it, untill proven the F86 is the plane that will be known for first braking it, but like I said before, I keep an open mind, unlike some other people and consider the "impossible" possible.
What I can't stand is people who consider things impossible and laugh at people saying it is possible.
As for prop planes braking the sound barrier (ie P47 pilot) that has been PROVEN impossible suported by both tests and calculations.
-
Fascinating info, Widewing. Thanks.
Welch also was among the first Americans to get Japanese kills during the Pearl Harbor attack, shooting down four, the most by any pilot.
-
Very nice reading but a few things to consider:
P80 wings length+sweepback? ->longish and straight resulting in pressure buildup at wing tip -> too much drag.
F104 a straight wing? Not really as the leading edge is angled backwards AND the wing is very short preventing the wing tip pressure buildup. Less drag. Thin wing ->Ok for SuperS.
ME262 a somewhat thick wing with sweepback which helps negating the effects of pressure build up at wingtips. Of course the wing is bad for supersonic flight but not nearly as bad as those designs seen in its contemporaries P80 and especially in Meteor. Also the fuselage shape could cause the tail to lose all its contact with the air in transonic area. Could. +the jetpipe ramp was of such shape that I'd imagine it to stall at transonic area.
I personally believe that in certain weather conditions the 262 was capable of slightly exceeding the sound barrier.
Just a few things that I keep relevant to this topic but then again I'm not an expert like widewing.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
Very nice reading but a few things to consider:
P80 wings length+sweepback? ->longish and straight resulting in pressure buildup at wing tip -> too much drag.
F104 a straight wing? Not really as the leading edge is angled backwards AND the wing is very short preventing the wing tip pressure buildup. Less drag. Thin wing ->Ok for SuperS.
ME262 a somewhat thick wing with sweepback which helps negating the effects of pressure build up at wingtips. Of course the wing is bad for supersonic flight but not nearly as bad as those designs seen in its contemporaries P80 and especially in Meteor. Also the fuselage shape could cause the tail to lose all its contact with the air in transonic area. Could. +the jetpipe ramp was of such shape that I'd imagine it to stall at transonic area.
I personally believe that in certain weather conditions the 262 was capable of slightly exceeding the sound barrier.
Just a few things that I keep relevant to this topic but then again I'm not an expert like widewing.
-C+
Well, the P-80 had a tapered, 11% chord to thickness ratio laminar flow wing. Being a laminar flow design, the drag rise is delayed as compared to the 262's conventional airfoil. As to sweep, the 262 had less leading edge sweep than the DC-3/C-47. And like the C-47, the sweep was implemented to shift the center of lift aft somewhat. My understanding is that the critical Mach of the P-80 and 262 are virtually the same. Likewise, the P-84 used a laminar flow design, but a slightly thinner wing of 10% ratio. Grumman's XF9F-1 employed a thicker airfoil of around 12-13% (reflected in its slightly lower critical Mach and actual level airspeed).
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
That having said, we have a flyable 262 around in Texas, as close to the original as we will ever get, but with much more powerful engines.
That is not correct, the "262" you are refering to is not in Texas, they were started there by the Texas Airplane Factory. Originally there was supposed to be 5 aircraft built. During construction, the TAF was accused of building another airplane to bring the number to 6 even though there were only supposed to be 5. The main backer, F86 demo pilot who was killed a few years ago, pulled the projects from the TAF and a new location was sought to finish the aircraft.
I worked at one of the locations, and helped on the quote to finish the aircraft, ultimately deciding that there was too much risk and liability as the aircraft departed drastically from the orignal designs, and thus were representing problems that the budget to finish them was not allowing for. We declined the offer. Fortunately for the projects, they were sent to WA and one has since flown, followed by a landing gear failure that substatially damaged the aircraft. Incidentally it has returned tot he air again, I believe on the 4th of June. Albeit the gear were not retracted.
THis may sound as though it is a bashing on the project themselves, it is not. I fully respect the work of the crews finishing the aircraft. I also think it is wonderful that a replica 262 is going to fly again, but it is not a "real" 262, and differs so much internally that it really needs a new designation such as Me262D or along those lines.
Back to Widewing's assertions that the 262 can not go past the sound barrier. That is simply scientific fact. The airframe can not sustain the high speed buffets that it will encounter before ripping up as it attempts to cross the sound barrier. To say otherwise is refuting proven science, and simply idiotic.
-
A little OT but since we are talking about first to break the speed of sound, Here is a first of a different kind
On 16 August 1960, Kittinger executed his most significant jump from an altitude of 102,800 feet, freefalling to 18,000 feet before opening his parachute and landing. Kittinger was not only the first person to parachute from above 100,000 feet, but, falling at reportedly 714 miles per hour, was also the first to exceed Mach 1 without an aircraft.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/goe/eaglebios/03bios/kittin03.htm
Brave/crazy man!!
RHIN0
-
Originally posted by kevykev56
A little OT but since we are talking about first to break the speed of sound, Here is a first of a different kind
quote: On 16 August 1960, Kittinger executed his most significant jump from an altitude of 102,800 feet, freefalling to 18,000 feet before opening his parachute and landing. Kittinger was not only the first person to parachute from above 100,000 feet, but, falling at reportedly 714 miles per hour, was also the first to exceed Mach 1 without an aircraft.
Brave/crazy man!!
RHIN0
Definitely not level flight.
-
Definitely not level flight.
LOL.....not even close to level
-
As to the Spitfire being faster in a dive than the 262, without its prop the answer is yes. A late-model Spitfire was dived from 44,000 feet in 1946. As it reached 25,000 feet the drag rise on the prop resulted in the prop hub failing. All five blades flew off into space. Continuing down, out of control, the Spitfire attained Mach 0.90 before increasing density and temperature slowed its physical and relative velocity to that where the pilot was able to regain control. After a deadstick landing, the aircraft was examined and promptly written off as being too damaged to repair.
I don't know of any documented Spitfire tests going past 0.89, but that was done with the prop still attached in a Spit PR XI in 1944.
-
On 16 August 1960, Kittinger executed his most significant jump from an altitude of 102,800 feet, freefalling to 18,000 feet before opening his parachute and landing. Kittinger was not only the first person to parachute from above 100,000 feet, but, falling at reportedly 714 miles per hour, was also the first to exceed Mach 1 without an aircraft.
That guy was ****ing nuts. There's a photograph from the gondola just hfter he jumped showing him falling towards an earth that is far, far down below. Never in a million years, unless you put a gun toi my head (and an automatic ejector on the seat :)).
Charon
-
Back to Widewing's assertions that the 262 can not go past the sound barrier. That is simply scientific fact. The airframe can not sustain the high speed buffets that it will encounter before ripping up as it attempts to cross the sound barrier. To say otherwise is refuting proven science, and simply idiotic.
Well no 262 that was said to pass the barrier survived, except the one in my link, however, it was a total write off once he finally landed it. Not saying he passed, just saying it was possible to survive the buffeting at those high speeds if the buffeting didn't last for too long as in the story told in the link.