US Coverup of Me-262 Mach Flight

[robert arndt]

http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/Chelain69-71.html

Someday the real history of Mach flight will be revealed as well as
the German disc aircraft programs of the Third Reich; that is,
whenever the US declassifies that info... or until 2020.
I'll wait it out just so people like Gordon and Al Minyard will have
to admit they were wrong. Can't wait until the first photos surface of
these craft in flight and/or the acknowledgement that the Me-262 broke
the sound barrier first in 1945.
Who will be red-faced then with embarassment and humiliation?

Rob

[B2431]

>Someday the real history of Mach flight will be revealed as well as
>the German disc aircraft programs of the Third Reich; that is,
>whenever the US declassifies that info... or until 2020.

OK, you seem so well read tell us about the "disc aircraft."

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: US Coverup of Me-262 Mach Flight
>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 9/25/03 11:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

> Third Reich; that is,
>whenever the US declassifies that info... or until 2020.
>I'll wait it out just so people like Gordon and Al Minyard will have
>to admit they were wrong. Can't wait until the first photos surface of
>these craft in flight and/or the acknowledgement that the Me-262 broke
>the sound barrier first in 1945.
>Who will be red-faced then with embarassment and humiliation?
>
>Rob
>

Your wild dreams on Nazi glory are just that.and nothing more.The Nazi swine
were ground into the dust leaving Germany a smoking burning ruin and a
disgrace to all humankind. I think you fit quite well into that world.You were
just born too late to die for Nazi glory to your everlasting regret.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Emilio]

This story has zero technical information; nothing!

I don't think Me262 had enough power or right airframe design to go faster
than sound. One of the main problems with supersonic flight was elevator
reversal. Me262 don't have the right control surface. I think the jet
engine would have stall as speed increased to speed of sound do to shock
wave formation at the intake.

Do you know why there is no record? Every pilot who tried to fly faster
than sound is dead.

Emilio.

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/Chelain69-71.html
>
> Someday the real history of Mach flight will be revealed as well as
> the German disc aircraft programs of the Third Reich; that is,
> whenever the US declassifies that info... or until 2020.
> I'll wait it out just so people like Gordon and Al Minyard will have
> to admit they were wrong. Can't wait until the first photos surface of
> these craft in flight and/or the acknowledgement that the Me-262 broke
> the sound barrier first in 1945.
> Who will be red-faced then with embarassment and humiliation?
>
> Rob

[Kevin Brooks]

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/Chelain69-71.html
>
> Someday the real history of Mach flight will be revealed as well as
> the German disc aircraft programs of the Third Reich; that is,
> whenever the US declassifies that info... or until 2020.
> I'll wait it out just so people like Gordon and Al Minyard will have
> to admit they were wrong. Can't wait until the first photos surface of
> these craft in flight and/or the acknowledgement that the Me-262 broke
> the sound barrier first in 1945.
> Who will be red-faced then with embarassment and humiliation?
>
> Rob

Am I the only guy around here who finds these rants a bit reminiscent
of the Dr. Strangelove character?

Brooks

[Bill Silvey]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om
> (robert arndt) wrote in message
> >...
>> http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/Chelain69-71.html
>>
>> Someday the real history of Mach flight will be revealed as well as
>> the German disc aircraft programs of the Third Reich; that is,
>> whenever the US declassifies that info... or until 2020.
>> I'll wait it out just so people like Gordon and Al Minyard will have
>> to admit they were wrong. Can't wait until the first photos surface
>> of these craft in flight and/or the acknowledgement that the Me-262
>> broke the sound barrier first in 1945.
>> Who will be red-faced then with embarassment and humiliation?
>>
>> Rob
>
> Am I the only guy around here who finds these rants a bit reminiscent
> of the Dr. Strangelove character?
>
> Brooks

"Mein Furher! I can VALK!"

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/Chelain69-71.html
>
> Someday the real history of Mach flight will be revealed as well as
> the German disc aircraft programs of the Third Reich; that is,
> whenever the US declassifies that info... or until 2020.

See other post.

Putting a plane into a 40 degree dive doesn't count, or the P-38 would
have made this "record" in 1941.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Putting a plane into a 40 degree dive doesn't count, or the P-38 would
> have made this "record" in 1941.
>

Supersonic flight in a dive would have counted, but no P-38 ever exceeded
the speed of sound in any attitude.

[Bill Silvey]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net
> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Putting a plane into a 40 degree dive doesn't count, or the P-38
>> would have made this "record" in 1941.
>>
>
> Supersonic flight in a dive would have counted, but no P-38 ever
> exceeded the speed of sound in any attitude.

I don't have it in front of me but IIRC Yeager said in "Wings" that a P-51
could do it.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Chad Irby]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > Putting a plane into a 40 degree dive doesn't count, or the P-38 would
> > have made this "record" in 1941.
>
> Supersonic flight in a dive would have counted, but no P-38 ever exceeded
> the speed of sound in any attitude.

Some reports suggest it did. It had the streamlining and terminal
velocity characteristics to manage it, if the pilot could deal with the
compressibility problems. But the claims are, to say the least, iffy.

They have about the same provenence as the Me-262 claim in the first
post, though, so they don't count. And if the Me-262 counts, they
should too.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> om
> > (robert arndt) wrote in message
> > >...
> >> http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/1/Chelain69-71.html
> >>
> >> Someday the real history of Mach flight will be revealed as well as
> >> the German disc aircraft programs of the Third Reich; that is,
> >> whenever the US declassifies that info... or until 2020.
> >> I'll wait it out just so people like Gordon and Al Minyard will have
> >> to admit they were wrong. Can't wait until the first photos surface
> >> of these craft in flight and/or the acknowledgement that the Me-262
> >> broke the sound barrier first in 1945.
> >> Who will be red-faced then with embarassment and humiliation?
> >>
> >> Rob
> >
> > Am I the only guy around here who finds these rants a bit reminiscent
> > of the Dr. Strangelove character?
> >
> > Brooks
>
> "Mein Furher! I can VALK!"

LOL! Exactly, complete with attempts to restrain his own right arm and
beating it about...

Brooks

[robert arndt]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> >Subject: US Coverup of Me-262 Mach Flight
> >From: (robert arndt)
> >Date: 9/25/03 11:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id:
>
> > Third Reich; that is,
> >whenever the US declassifies that info... or until 2020.
> >I'll wait it out just so people like Gordon and Al Minyard will have
> >to admit they were wrong. Can't wait until the first photos surface of
> >these craft in flight and/or the acknowledgement that the Me-262 broke
> >the sound barrier first in 1945.
> >Who will be red-faced then with embarassment and humiliation?
> >
> >Rob
> >
>
> Your wild dreams on Nazi glory are just that.and nothing more.The Nazi swine
> were ground into the dust leaving Germany a smoking burning ruin and a
> disgrace to all humankind. I think you fit quite well into that world.You were
> just born too late to die for Nazi glory to your everlasting regret.
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Wild dreams? And WHOSE dreams were they that got America to the moon?
Hint: Saturn V rocket which was Von Braun's baby.
You're just ****ed off Art that what became the USAF postwar has lied
and covered-up hundreds of tons of secret documents and recovered
aircraft prototypes that were far more advanced than the Me-262.
That's why that stuff is still classified because those craft are
directly linked to our most black projects.
Hell, if Hap Arnold would not allow Howard Hughes to enter his slick
high-performance Me-262 in the air trophy races postwar (for fear of
the Nazi machine winning the race) then there is definately no way the
USAF could reveal that the Nazis invented some form of advanced disc
craft that flew beyond anything we had in inventory at the time.
The same applies today with the exception of the USAF officially
admitting the Germans did have disc prototypes back in the late 1990s
but offering absolutely no photos nor data on said aircraft. Just a
small admission that they had them and a quick statement about them
being prototypes that were unstable. That was almost a decade ago and
we still don't get to see anything. What is the USAF hiding? Why is it
so important to keep German disc aircraft from 1945 classified if
indeed these craft never flew, were tethered, or unstable? The truth
is that these machines held technology that was beyond what any of the
Allies expected and it probably took the US the better part of 5
decades to duplicate and improve on the German machines.
But someday the truth will be revealed and I wonder what you will say
then... except "we won WW2"... and how the "B-26 saved us all". Same
old Art, same old story. I hope than when you die they bury some of
that old scrap metal with you so you'll feel right at home.

Rob

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: US Coverup of Me-262 Mach Flight
>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 9/26/03 5:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time

>But someday the truth will be revealed an

The truth is already revealed and you Krauts are out of the loop. Way out. You
bumblers couldn't even build a jet engine that worked. (sheesh)



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Dudley Henriques]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >>
> >> Putting a plane into a 40 degree dive doesn't count, or the P-38
> >> would have made this "record" in 1941.
> >>
> >
> > Supersonic flight in a dive would have counted, but no P-38 ever
> > exceeded the speed of sound in any attitude.
>
> I don't have it in front of me but IIRC Yeager said in "Wings" that a P-51
> could do it.

Don't think so. Yeager knows better than this believe me. But I'm sure what
he did say could easily have been mistaken , as he has discussed high mach
dives in prop fighters on many occasions.
Sometimes during these "discussions", listening to Yeager speak.... it's
entirely possible to come away with a mistaken impression unless you are
listening VERY closely to what he's saying. That "drawl" of his kind of sits
in your ears and floats around there for a while before it either enters
your brain or gets spit out :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
For personal e-mail, use
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
(replacezwithe)

[Bill Silvey]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net
> "Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
>> message ink.net
>>> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>>
>>>> Putting a plane into a 40 degree dive doesn't count, or the P-38
>>>> would have made this "record" in 1941.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Supersonic flight in a dive would have counted, but no P-38 ever
>>> exceeded the speed of sound in any attitude.
>>
>> I don't have it in front of me but IIRC Yeager said in "Wings" that
>> a P-51 could do it.
>
> Don't think so. Yeager knows better than this believe me. But I'm
> sure what he did say could easily have been mistaken , as he has
> discussed high mach dives in prop fighters on many occasions.
> Sometimes during these "discussions", listening to Yeager speak....
> it's entirely possible to come away with a mistaken impression unless
> you are listening VERY closely to what he's saying. That "drawl" of
> his kind of sits in your ears and floats around there for a while
> before it either enters your brain or gets spit out :-)

I double-checked; Yeager said he'd gotten his P51 to Mach .7 in a dive.

Sorry for the confusion.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Mike Marron]

> "Bill Silvey" > wrote:

>I double-checked; Yeager said he'd gotten his P51 to Mach .7 in a dive.

Big Whoop! I can CRUISE at mach .07 in straight_and_level.

-Mike (chek 6) Marron

[MLenoch]

(robert arndt)

wrote:>You're just ****ed off Art that what became the USAF postwar has lied
>and covered-up hundreds of tons of secret documents and recovered
>aircraft prototypes that were far more advanced than the Me-262.

Yeah, and they invented headcheese too!

VL

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I don't have it in front of me but IIRC Yeager said in "Wings" that a P-51
> could do it.
>

If he said that he's wrong, but I doubt he said it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Some reports suggest it did.
>

Examined and proven false years ago.

[Dudley Henriques]

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
> (robert arndt)
>
> wrote:>You're just ****ed off Art that what became the USAF postwar has
lied
> >and covered-up hundreds of tons of secret documents and recovered
> >aircraft prototypes that were far more advanced than the Me-262.
>
> Yeah, and they invented headcheese too!
>
> VL

Not bad Vlado....not bad!! :-)))
Dudley

[Corey C. Jordan]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:13:01 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article et>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >
>> > Putting a plane into a 40 degree dive doesn't count, or the P-38 would
>> > have made this "record" in 1941.
>>
>> Supersonic flight in a dive would have counted, but no P-38 ever exceeded
>> the speed of sound in any attitude.
>
>Some reports suggest it did. It had the streamlining and terminal
>velocity characteristics to manage it, if the pilot could deal with the
>compressibility problems. But the claims are, to say the least, iffy.

Impossible. Since the prop goes supersonic long before the aircraft,
the pressure rise won't allow it. At high sub-sonic speeds propellers
make remarkable air brakes.

If any WWII fighter was least likely to get near Mach 1, it was the P-38
with its 0.68 critical Mach.

My regards,

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com

[Mike Marron]

> (Corey C. Jordan) wrote:

>If any WWII fighter was least likely to get near Mach 1, it was the P-38
>with its 0.68 critical Mach.

And as any truthful RAF Sea Vixen driver would attest, not to mention
the P-38's relatively dirty twin boom design.

-Mike Marron

[B2431]

>Wild dreams? And WHOSE dreams were they that got America to the moon?
>Hint: Saturn V rocket which was Von Braun's baby.

What does that swine have to do with this discussion? As far as I know he never
touched an Me262. He did manage to abuse and kill concentration camp inmates
working on the A4/V2. None of which has anything to do with whether the Me262
did anything.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Bill Silvey > wrote:
>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> I don't have it in front of me but IIRC Yeager said in "Wings" that
>>> a P-51 could do it.
>>
>> Don't think so. Yeager knows better than this believe me. But I'm
>> sure what he did say could easily have been mistaken , as he has
>> discussed high mach dives in prop fighters on many occasions.

>I double-checked; Yeager said he'd gotten his P51 to Mach .7 in a dive.

A Spitfire was taken up into - IIRC - the 0.8-0.9 Mach range during
trials just before the end of WW2 - destroyed the prop and engine in the
process, but somehow the pilot got it all down in one piece. That's
still the Mach record for a piston-engined a/c, I believe.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Mike Marron > wrote:
>> (Corey C. Jordan) wrote:
>
>>If any WWII fighter was least likely to get near Mach 1, it was the P-38
>>with its 0.68 critical Mach.
>
>And as any truthful RAF Sea Vixen driver would attest, not to mention
>the P-38's relatively dirty twin boom design.

*Ahem*
ITYM "any truthful FAA Sea Vixen driver.." :)

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales....
Nieveler's law: "Any USENET thread, if sufficiently prolonged and not
Godwinated, will eventually turn into a discussion about
alcoholic drinks."

[Dave Kearton]

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Mike Marron > wrote:
> >> (Corey C. Jordan) wrote:
> >
> >>If any WWII fighter was least likely to get near Mach 1, it was the P-38
> >>with its 0.68 critical Mach.
> >
> >And as any truthful RAF Sea Vixen driver would attest, not to mention
> >the P-38's relatively dirty twin boom design.
>
> *Ahem*
> ITYM "any truthful FAA Sea Vixen driver.." :)
>
> --


For me, I am always confusing the Javelin and Sea Vixen. With similar
performance and both bush pig-ugly I have to catch myself from making the
same mistake.


cheers


Dave Kearton

[Bill Silvey]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net
> "Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> I don't have it in front of me but IIRC Yeager said in "Wings" that
>> a P-51 could do it.
>>
>
> If he said that he's wrong, but I doubt he said it.

See my earlier post regarding. My mistake.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[[email protected]]

Mike Marron > wrote:

>> (Corey C. Jordan) wrote:
>
>>If any WWII fighter was least likely to get near Mach 1, it was the P-38
>>with its 0.68 critical Mach.
>
>And as any truthful RAF Sea Vixen driver would attest, not to mention
>the P-38's relatively dirty twin boom design.
>
>-Mike Marron
>
>
Two booms?...isn't that the signature of an a/c achieving mach
one?. So the P-38 IS supersonic then?.
--

-Gord.

[Mike Marron]

(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>And as any truthful RAF Sea Vixen driver would attest, not to mention
>>the P-38's relatively dirty twin boom design.

>*Ahem*
>ITYM "any truthful FAA Sea Vixen driver.." :)

Whatever. Anything with "Vixen" in the name...

-Mike (vixen booty) Marron

[B2431]

>>And as any truthful RAF Sea Vixen driver would attest, not to mention
>>the P-38's relatively dirty twin boom design.
>>
>>-Mike Marron
>>
>>
>Two booms?...isn't that the signature of an a/c achieving mach
>one?. So the P-38 IS supersonic then?.
>--
>
>-Gord.
>
Gord, not to put too fine a point on it, but that reeks. What's worse is I
didn't think of it first.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

(B2431) wrote:

>>>And as any truthful RAF Sea Vixen driver would attest, not to mention
>>>the P-38's relatively dirty twin boom design.
>>>
>>>-Mike Marron
>>>
>>>
>>Two booms?...isn't that the signature of an a/c achieving mach
>>one?. So the P-38 IS supersonic then?.
>>--
>>
>>-Gord.
>>
>Gord, not to put too fine a point on it, but that reeks. What's worse is I
>didn't think of it first.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Heh heh...couldn't resist...you get the wingless 130 going?...
<shudder>
--

-Gord.

[B2431]

>..you get the wingless 130 going?...
><shudder>
>--
>
>-Gord.

I am still looking for a copy of that clip.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[James Hart]

B2431 wrote:
>> ..you get the wingless 130 going?...
>> <shudder>
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
> I am still looking for a copy of that clip.

http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/c-a30_down.avi
7 MB though.
That the one?

--
James...
http://www.jameshart.co.uk/

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"James Hart" > wrote:

> B2431 wrote:
> >> ..you get the wingless 130 going?...
> >> <shudder>
> >> --
> >>
> >> -Gord.
> >
> > I am still looking for a copy of that clip.
>
> http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/c-a30_down.avi

Error, file no longer there.

> 7 MB though.
> That the one?

[B2431]

>Someday the real history of Mach flight will be revealed as well as
>the German disc aircraft programs of the Third Reich

I ask again, what disc aircraft program? What are your sources?

If you are thinking of the "Flying Pankcake" that was a Vought aircraft built
ins the U.S. and actually flew.

Take a look at the website you cited and you will also find denials of the
existance of gas chambers, murder of Jews..etc which makes tens of thousands
of Germans, Soviets, French, U.S., British etc military and civil personnel all
liars and I am not referring to Jewish personnel. Amazing how everyone is out
to blame the poor, innocent Nazis for the murder of 6 million Jews and 6
million non jews.

Tell you what, make a website stating the human race didn't exist before 100
years ago and you will have loonies crawling out from under the same rocks as
the Holocaust deniers like you came from.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 02:32:52 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

>Mike Marron > wrote:
>
>>> (Corey C. Jordan) wrote:
>>
>>>If any WWII fighter was least likely to get near Mach 1, it was the P-38
>>>with its 0.68 critical Mach.
>>
>>And as any truthful RAF Sea Vixen driver would attest, not to mention
>>the P-38's relatively dirty twin boom design.
>>
>>-Mike Marron
>>
>>
>Two booms?...isn't that the signature of an a/c achieving mach
>one?. So the P-38 IS supersonic then?.

Actually, it must have been hyper-sonic since both booms arrived at
the same time :-)

Al Minyard

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Gord Beaman
<?@?.?> writes
>Two booms?...isn't that the signature of an a/c achieving mach
>one?. So the P-38 IS supersonic then?.

Reminds me of Richard Nobel's SSC team scoreboard in the desert,
something like 'Spirit of America - 650; Thrust SSC - Boom Boom'.

--
John

[[email protected]]

Alan Minyard > wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 02:32:52 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
>wrote:
>
>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>>
>>>> (Corey C. Jordan) wrote:
>>>
>>>>If any WWII fighter was least likely to get near Mach 1, it was the P-38
>>>>with its 0.68 critical Mach.
>>>
>>>And as any truthful RAF Sea Vixen driver would attest, not to mention
>>>the P-38's relatively dirty twin boom design.
>>>
>>>-Mike Marron
>>>
>>>
>>Two booms?...isn't that the signature of an a/c achieving mach
>>one?. So the P-38 IS supersonic then?.
>
>Actually, it must have been hyper-sonic since both booms arrived at
>the same time :-)
>
>Al Minyard

....plus they were likely parallel booms too, eh?

:)
--

-Gord.

[MLenoch]

>"Gord Beaman" )

wrote:>...plus they were likely parallel booms too, eh?
>
>:)
>--

Gord......stop!...STOP!! Ya got me on the floor!! Whoooweeee!!!
VL

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"James Hart" > wrote:

> Steve Hix wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "James Hart" > wrote:
> >
> >> B2431 wrote:
> >>>> ..you get the wingless 130 going?...
> >>>> <shudder>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> -Gord.
> >>>
> >>> I am still looking for a copy of that clip.
> >>http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/c-a30_down.avi
> >>
> >
> > Error, file no longer there.
>
> Try again, server's been taking a bit of a hit with a file that size but a
> dozen or so have grabbed it so far according to the logs.

Still down. :{

I'll try again later.

[machf]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:36:25 -0700, Steve Hix >
wrote:

>In article >,
> "James Hart" > wrote:
>
>> Steve Hix wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > "James Hart" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> B2431 wrote:
>> >>>> ..you get the wingless 130 going?...
>> >>>> <shudder>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -Gord.
>> >>>
>> >>> I am still looking for a copy of that clip.
>> >>http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/c-a30_down.avi
>> >>
>> >
>> > Error, file no longer there.
>>
>> Try again, server's been taking a bit of a hit with a file that size but a
>> dozen or so have grabbed it so far according to the logs.
>
>Still down. :{
>
>I'll try again later.

The problem is there is a typo in the URL, it should be

http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/c-130_down.avi

I tried that and had no problem downloading it...

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(

remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

[James Hart]

machf wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:36:25 -0700, Steve Hix
> > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "James Hart" > wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> "James Hart" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> B2431 wrote:
>>>>>>> ..you get the wingless 130 going?...
>>>>>>> <shudder>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Gord.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am still looking for a copy of that clip.
>>>>> http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/c-a30_down.avi
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Error, file no longer there.
>>>
>>> Try again, server's been taking a bit of a hit with a file that
>>> size but a dozen or so have grabbed it so far according to the logs.
>>
>> Still down. :{
>>
>> I'll try again later.
>
> The problem is there is a typo in the URL, it should be
>
> http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/c-130_down.avi
>
> I tried that and had no problem downloading it...

Sorry folks, my bad. How strange, I cut 'n' pasted from the browser when I
checked it worked but it's misspelt in the original post.

--
James...
http://www.jameshart.co.uk/

[[email protected]]

machf > wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:36:25 -0700, Steve Hix >
>wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> "James Hart" > wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>> > In article >,
>>> > "James Hart" > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> B2431 wrote:
>>> >>>> ..you get the wingless 130 going?...
>>> >>>> <shudder>
>>> >>>> --
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> -Gord.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am still looking for a copy of that clip.
>>> >>http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/c-a30_down.avi
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Error, file no longer there.
>>>
>>> Try again, server's been taking a bit of a hit with a file that size but a
>>> dozen or so have grabbed it so far according to the logs.
>>
>>Still down. :{
>>
>>I'll try again later.
>
>The problem is there is a typo in the URL, it should be
>
>http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/c-130_down.avi
>
>I tried that and had no problem downloading it...

Exactly...I said that a couple days ago...
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

(B2431) wrote:

>>>On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 02:32:52 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> (Corey C. Jordan) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>If any WWII fighter was least likely to get near Mach 1, it was the P-38
>>>>>>with its 0.68 critical Mach.
>>>>>
>>>>>And as any truthful RAF Sea Vixen driver would attest, not to mention
>>>>>the P-38's relatively dirty twin boom design.
>>>>>
>>>>>-Mike Marron
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Two booms?...isn't that the signature of an a/c achieving mach
>>>>one?. So the P-38 IS supersonic then?.
>>>
>>>Actually, it must have been hyper-sonic since both booms arrived at
>>>the same time :-)
>>>
>>>Al Minyard
>>
>>...plus they were likely parallel booms too, eh?
>>
>>:)
>>--
>>
>>-Gord.
>>
>Flown by Wendy "boom boom" Whoppers?
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>
Yep...good friend of Major Hooters IIRC...
--

-Gord.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
machf > wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:36:25 -0700, Steve Hix
> >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > "James Hart" > wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Hix wrote:
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "James Hart" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> B2431 wrote:
> >> >>>> ..you get the wingless 130 going?...
> >> >>>> <shudder>
> >> >>>> --
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> -Gord.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I am still looking for a copy of that clip.
> >> >>http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/c-a30_down.avi
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Error, file no longer there.
> >>
> >> Try again, server's been taking a bit of a hit with a file that size but a
> >> dozen or so have grabbed it so far according to the logs.
> >
> >Still down. :{
> >
> >I'll try again later.
>
> The problem is there is a typo in the URL, it should be
>
> http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/c-130_down.avi
>
> I tried that and had no problem downloading it...

Got it! Thanks.

[Jim Thomas]

I suspect that a problem would have been the accuracy of the
pitot-static system to indicate supersonic flight. I don't think that
any of the prop planes mentioned had a flight-test-type boom stuck out
ahead of the fuselage, prop, wings, etc., not to mention any position
error corrections for transonic flight. In other words, these aircraft
may have gone supersonic, but there was no way to know.

Jim Thomas

Chad Irby wrote:

> In article et>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>>>Putting a plane into a 40 degree dive doesn't count, or the P-38 would
>>>have made this "record" in 1941.
>>
>>Supersonic flight in a dive would have counted, but no P-38 ever exceeded
>>the speed of sound in any attitude.
>
>
> Some reports suggest it did. It had the streamlining and terminal
> velocity characteristics to manage it, if the pilot could deal with the
> compressibility problems. But the claims are, to say the least, iffy.
>
> They have about the same provenence as the Me-262 claim in the first
> post, though, so they don't count. And if the Me-262 counts, they
> should too.
>

[Gordon]

>
>I suspect that a problem would have been the accuracy of the
>pitot-static system to indicate supersonic flight.

The only indicator of a supersonic flight that Mutke had was a tingling in his
balls. No person on the ground reported a sonic boom, no aircraft was logged as
damaged during an inflight event by his unit on the date Mutke claims, etc.,
etc., etc. I have no doubt he went fast that day, but supersonic?? NO.

>I don't think that
>any of the prop planes mentioned had a flight-test-type boom stuck out
>ahead of the fuselage, prop, wings, etc., not to mention any position
>error corrections for transonic flight.

Same with Mutke's vanilla Me 262 fighter - no onboard instrumentation that
could have determined if transonic flight were actually occurring.

> In other words, these aircraft
>may have gone supersonic, but there was no way to know.

In the case of the 262, it was somewhat easier to tell, since its intakes and
rounded nose preclude any such supersonic event.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[Tom]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote in message >...
> "ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Mike Marron > wrote:
> > >> (Corey C. Jordan) wrote:
>
> > >>If any WWII fighter was least likely to get near Mach 1, it was the P-38
> > >>with its 0.68 critical Mach.
> > >
> > >And as any truthful RAF Sea Vixen driver would attest, not to mention
> > >the P-38's relatively dirty twin boom design.
> >
> > *Ahem*
> > ITYM "any truthful FAA Sea Vixen driver.." :)
> >
> > --
>
>
> For me, I am always confusing the Javelin and Sea Vixen. With similar
> performance

I'm pretty sure the DH110 at least could break the sound barrier
(possibly not in level flight, mind).

> and both bush pig-ugly

Highly subjective of cours,e but I always thought the Vixen a fairly
elegant looking bird.

Still no excuse for confusing the gin-sipping gentlemen of the FAA
with the infinitely lesser Crab though..

[Keith Willshaw]

"Tom" > wrote in message
om...

> >
> > For me, I am always confusing the Javelin and Sea Vixen. With
similar
> > performance
>
> I'm pretty sure the DH110 at least could break the sound barrier
> (possibly not in level flight, mind).
>

It was supersonic in a dive and DeHavilland had plans
for a version with thin wings that would have been
capable of Mach 1.4 in level flight

> > and both bush pig-ugly
>
> Highly subjective of cours,e but I always thought the Vixen a fairly
> elegant looking bird.
>

Agreed although the off centreline cockpit looks a little odd.

Keith