Me-262, NOT Bell X-1 Broke SB First [Archive]

Dudley Henriques

September 27th 03, 01:53 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...

> We lost more than one fighter from compressibility, and it's quite
> possible that one or more made it "through" Mach 1 and back.

Sorry. This is wrong. It is physically impossible for a prop driven aircraft
to exceed mach one. Trust me on this. I've had a Mustang out all the way to
..75. The circumstances that day were such that had the airplane been
capable, it would have made it through. It didn't!!
The prop drag curve on the props of the era becomes insurmountable. In my
case, a Hamilton Standard 24D50 on the 51.
The RAF tried every which way but backwards to put a Spit through at
Boscombe Down after the war. They failed...and they had some real
heavyweights flying these airplanes too.
Herb Fisher did extensive high mach dive tests in a modified Jug that used
several highly experimental semitar shaped propellers. Even Herb couldn't
make it through. Trust me again...I knew him well!!
The simple truth about props is that the drag rise in compressibility can't
be overcome by thrust and velocity. It's a no win situation. It can't be
done.
Furthermore, the 262 didn't make it through either. It's aerodynamic shape
coupled with it's ability to create the thrust required didn't equate. There
was no way the 262 would have been able to get high enough and accelerate
fast enough in real time within the altitude restraints it could create. In
other words, for the specific design of the 262, there simply wasn't enough
sky up there to get it done. This is common knowledge in the flight test
community. Even if it had the air available, the 262's drag index curve
would never have allowed a total mach one airflow.
George Welch was probably the first through mach one. I realize this damn
argument will go on forever, but Welch again is the general consensus of the
flight test community......and Yeager is very much a member of this
community :-)))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
For personal e-mail, use
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
(replacezwithe)

Peter Stickney

September 27th 03, 04:01 AM

In article >,
"Emmanuel Gustin" > writes:
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>> http://mach1.luftarchiv.de/weisse_9.htm
>>
>> "White 9" deserves the credit, not "Glamorous Glennis"!
>
> This seems complete nonsense to me.
>
> The Germans did fly high-speed tests with the Me 262, of course.
> The senior Me 262 test pilot, Zeigler, has described how they
> climbed to 10.000 to 12.000 m, and then put the aircraft into
> a steep full-throttle dive. At 7000 meter they would reach
> 950 km/h, close enough to Mach 1 at that altitude to produce a
> deep rumble as the airflow detached, followed by a strong tendency
> for the nose to drop and the aircraft to roll. The Me 262 then
> entered an out-of-control dive until it had descended into the
> denser air at low altitude. The dive achieved only Mach 0.86
> at 5700 m.

It ought to be pointed out that on a Standard Day, 950 km/hr at 7,000m
is Mach 0.84.

At that point the Me 262 is just entering into the mach number
range where the Drag Coefficient is increasing extremely rapidly.

> It is also claimed that in July 1944 a modified Me 262 with a
> low-drag canopy reached slightly over 1000 km/h at 10.000 m
> in level flight, or Mach 0.92. But the type was firmly subsonic.
> In service Me 262 were 'red-lined' to stay out of compressibility
> problems, as they tended to become (quite unlike the XS-1 or
> F-86) completely uncontrollable at high Mach numbers.

Just so. As, it should be pointed out, were the P-80, the P-84, and
the Meteor. In the case of the P-80 and P-84, the difference in dive
speed available due to the higher Limiting Mach of the Me 262 worked
out to a whopping 15 mph (15 kph), and the P-84 was dead even. Both
American types had more power adn less drag in level flight.

> But the Me 262 actually had quite good decent aerodynamic
> characteristics for transsonic flight compared to the Meteor,
> which initially suffered from control problems already at
> Mach 0.71 to 0.74, because the engine nacelles of the early
> Meteors were too fat and disturbed the airflow.

Which was fixed by the longer nacelles of the Meteor IV. The Vampire,
though, with its faily thick wing, was stuck at about Mach 0.75 or so.

> Of the propeller fighters the Spitfire got closest to Mach 1
> because its thin wing had less drag at such high speeds even than
> the laminar flow wing of the Mustang. Tony Martindale reached
> 0.92, not without blowing up the gearing of the overspinning
> propeller, and bringing back the aircraft without propeller.
> There also is a claim that a weather reconnaissance PR.IX
> reached 0.96 in an uncontrolled dive from high altitude over
> Hong Kong.

The Spit actually had the best high Mach number drag characteristics,
and handling behavior of all of the WW 2 era fighters. (The Spitfire
also ended up with better high-speed bahavior that its laminar-winged
successor, the Spiteful.)

> During WWII there were claims to have achieved Mach 1 in
> various fighters in dives, but most of these would have been
> transsonic dives, with airflow over the aircraft only being
> locally supersonic -- and airspeed indication probably
> becoming very unreliable as a result. It is characteristic of
> the true performance of these aircraft that when designers
> decided to install Mach meters, these had scales ranging
> only up to 0.8.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Steven P. McNicoll

September 27th 03, 04:06 AM

"John Halliwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> One could also argue another requirement, is that the 'aircraft'
> achieving it, is self-sufficient and is capable of taking off under its
> own power.
>

Not if one wished to be taken seriously.

Steven P. McNicoll

September 27th 03, 04:08 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
>
> All of the other speed records set up until that time were in horizontal
> flight.
>

Irrelevan't. We're not talking about setting records, we're talking about
achieving supersonic flight.

>
> We lost more than one fighter from compressibility, and it's quite
> possible that one or more made it "through" Mach 1 and back.
>

No, it's not at all possible.

Steven P. McNicoll

September 27th 03, 04:10 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
>
> I could go with that. But the "achieveing Mach 1 in level flight" part
> is still pretty solid. If we include diving to gain speed, though, the
> Me-262 isn't even in the running.
>

The Me 262 isn't in the running regardless of attitude.

Mike Marron

September 27th 03, 04:18 AM

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Chad Irby" > wrote:

>>I could go with that. But the "achieveing Mach 1 in level flight" part
>>is still pretty solid. If we include diving to gain speed, though, the
>>Me-262 isn't even in the running.

>The Me 262 isn't in the running regardless of attitude.

Er um, you misspelled "altitude."

-Mike (Zzzzz) Marron

Steven P. McNicoll

September 27th 03, 04:25 AM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> Er um, you misspelled "altitude."
>

Nope. "Attitude" is used by pilots to describe the orientation of an
aircraft's axes relative to a reference line, normally the horizon.

Mike Marron

September 27th 03, 04:37 AM

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>Er um, you misspelled "altitude."

>Nope. "Attitude" is used by pilots to describe the orientation of an
>aircraft's axes relative to a reference line, normally the horizon.

Since you ain't a pilot, you regurgitated that one by rote, huh?

-Mike Marron

Corey C. Jordan

September 27th 03, 04:39 AM

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:10:40 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article et>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > When you break a speed record, one of the requirements is that you do it
>> > in *level flight*.
>>
>> But no such requirement existed for the first supersonic flight.
>
>All of the other speed records set up until that time were in horizontal
>flight.

John Derry is recognized as being the first Brit to exceed Mach 1 when
he flew the DH.108 Swallow down in an uncontrolled dive from 45,000
feet. He was able to wrestle back control (unlike Geoffrey de Havilland)
and land that ill mannered beast.

The first is still the first.... Even the USAF had the good sense to stress
the point that Yeager was the first in level flight, obviously surrendering any
outright claim to be first overall.

My regards,

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

Steven P. McNicoll

September 27th 03, 04:39 AM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> Since you ain't a pilot, you regurgitated that one by rote, huh?
>

I'm more pilot than you can ever hope to be.

Mike Marron

September 27th 03, 04:44 AM

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>Since you ain't a pilot, you regurgitated that one by rote, huh?

>I'm more pilot than you can ever hope to be.

Lemme guess, you're a former air force grease monkey now with
a private pilot's license? [snicker]

-Mike Marron

Peter Stickney

September 27th 03, 06:02 AM

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
>
> "John Halliwell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> One could also argue another requirement, is that the 'aircraft'
>> achieving it, is self-sufficient and is capable of taking off under its
>> own power.
>>
>
> Not if one wished to be taken seriously.

In fact, one of the requiremts for the design of the XS-1 was that it
be able to take off from a more or less conventional runway. This was
demonstrated once at Muroc. It was much more productive, however, to
carry the thing up to 30,000'/300mph and save the fuel for
accelerating and climbing. The goal, after all, was to explore the
transonic and supersonic regions, not to set FAI records.

The same goes for the Sabre, too. While F-86s routinely made
supersonic dives, all of the accredited Speed Records set by Sabers
were in level flight, and were in the high subsonic speed
range. (Well, transonic, really, but the airplane was moving on the
slow side of Mach 1)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

B2431

September 27th 03, 06:04 AM

Actually, all this is should be pretty easy to prove if one has access to
virtual wind tunnels. All one has to do to prove an aircraft can not excede
mach 1 is to do tests on the suspected limiting factor. In the case of the
Me262 a 2 dimensional flow model of the wing or engine inlet should suffice.
Once you have determined a limiting factor it makes no difference if the rest
of the aircraft could have done it.

While such tests are not the same as real tests does anyone have an Me262 they
care to sacrifice?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Cub Driver

September 27th 03, 10:54 AM

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 03:44:49 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:

>Lemme guess, you're a former air force grease monkey now with
>a private pilot's license? [snicker]

Mike, most every day you tempt me to put a filter on you.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver

September 27th 03, 10:58 AM

Don't you just hate a guy who spoils a perfectly good argument by
dragging facts into it?

>> "White 9" deserves the credit, not "Glamorous Glennis"!
>
>This seems complete nonsense to me.
>
>The Germans did fly high-speed tests with the Me 262, of course.
>The senior Me 262 test pilot, Zeigler, has described how they
>climbed to 10.000 to 12.000 m, and then put the aircraft into
>a steep full-throttle dive. At 7000 meter they would reach
>950 km/h, close enough to Mach 1 at that altitude to produce a
>deep rumble as the airflow detached, followed by a strong tendency
>for the nose to drop and the aircraft to roll. The Me 262 then
>entered an out-of-control dive until it had descended into the
>denser air at low altitude. The dive achieved only Mach 0.86
>at 5700 m.
>
>It is also claimed that in July 1944 a modified Me 262 with a
>low-drag canopy reached slightly over 1000 km/h at 10.000 m
>in level flight, or Mach 0.92. But the type was firmly subsonic.
>In service Me 262 were 'red-lined' to stay out of compressibility
>problems, as they tended to become (quite unlike the XS-1 or
>F-86) completely uncontrollable at high Mach numbers.
>
>But the Me 262 actually had quite good decent aerodynamic
>characteristics for transsonic flight compared to the Meteor,
>which initially suffered from control problems already at
>Mach 0.71 to 0.74, because the engine nacelles of the early
>Meteors were too fat and disturbed the airflow.
>
>Of the propeller fighters the Spitfire got closest to Mach 1
>because its thin wing had less drag at such high speeds even than
>the laminar flow wing of the Mustang. Tony Martindale reached
>0.92, not without blowing up the gearing of the overspinning
>propeller, and bringing back the aircraft without propeller.
>There also is a claim that a weather reconnaissance PR.IX
>reached 0.96 in an uncontrolled dive from high altitude over
>Hong Kong.
>
>During WWII there were claims to have achieved Mach 1 in
>various fighters in dives, but most of these would have been
>transsonic dives, with airflow over the aircraft only being
>locally supersonic -- and airspeed indication probably
>becoming very unreliable as a result. It is characteristic of
>the true performance of these aircraft that when designers
>decided to install Mach meters, these had scales ranging
>only up to 0.8.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

MLenoch

September 27th 03, 02:31 PM

>Mike Marron

wrote:>Lemme guess, you're a former air force grease monkey now with
>a private pilot's license? [snicker]
>

Petty and disrespectful. I don't think I'd trust flying with your ego.
VL

B2431

September 27th 03, 07:14 PM

>From: (MLenoch)
>Date: 9/27/2003 8:31 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Mike Marron
>
>wrote:>Lemme guess, you're a former air force grease monkey now with
>>a private pilot's license? [snicker]
>>
>
>Petty and disrespectful. I don't think I'd trust flying with your ego.
>VL
>

Agreed.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Steven P. McNicoll

September 27th 03, 07:50 PM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> Lemme guess, you're a former air force grease monkey now with
> a private pilot's license? [snicker]
>

You write that like there might be something negative about being a former
Air Force mechanic or private pilot.

Steve Hix

September 27th 03, 10:17 PM

In article >,
Mike Marron > wrote:

> >"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> >>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
>
> >>Er um, you misspelled "altitude."
>
> >Nope. "Attitude" is used by pilots to describe the orientation of an
> >aircraft's axes relative to a reference line, normally the horizon.
>
> Since you ain't a pilot, you regurgitated that one by rote, huh?

Whether he is a pilot or not makes no difference; "attitude"
was what was meant, "altitude" was not:

The Me-262 wasn't going to be supersonic (in one piece, at
least) in level flight or heading straight down, or any other
attitude.

Steve Hix

September 27th 03, 10:18 PM

In article >,
Mike Marron > wrote:

> >"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> >>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
>
> >>Since you ain't a pilot, you regurgitated that one by rote, huh?
>
> >I'm more pilot than you can ever hope to be.
>
> Lemme guess, you're a former air force grease monkey now with
> a private pilot's license? [snicker]
>
> -Mike Marron

Sigh...

*PLONK*

[email protected]

September 28th 03, 03:46 AM

(B2431) wrote:

>>From: (MLenoch)
>>Date: 9/27/2003 8:31 AM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>>Mike Marron
>>
>>wrote:>Lemme guess, you're a former air force grease monkey now with
>>>a private pilot's license? [snicker]
>>>
>>
>>Petty and disrespectful. I don't think I'd trust flying with your ego.
>>VL
>>
>
>Agreed.
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Marron, you're not helping your reputation here you know...you
seem to have a problem with your self image. Try to remember that
we all have some worth and that putting someone else down never
helps yourself in the long run.
--

-Gord.

Mike Marron

September 28th 03, 04:29 AM

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>Lemme guess, you're a former air force grease monkey now with
>>a private pilot's license? [snicker]

>You write that like there might be something negative about being a former
>Air Force mechanic or private pilot.

Lemme guess, you are a United States Air Force technician now with
a United States Federal Aviation Administration Private Pilot
Certificate?

-Mike (snicker) Marron

Mike Marron

September 28th 03, 04:45 AM

>Steve Hix > wrote:

>Whether he is a pilot or not makes no difference; "attitude"
>was what was meant, "altitude" was not:

He said he was more pilot than I ever wuz or wannabe or sumpthin.

>The Me-262 wasn't going to be supersonic (in one piece, at
>least) in level flight or heading straight down, or any other
>attitude.

Damn straight. So let's PLONK that Me-262 and be done with it!!

-Mike (whole lotta' plonkin' goin' on) Marron

Regnirps

September 28th 03, 06:33 AM

Mike Marron wrote:

<<He said he was more pilot than I ever wuz or wannabe or sumpthin. >>

I went flying once with a guy who talks like you. He forgot to set the fuel
selector to "Both" before takeoff and were were mighty close to the trees and
the Pearly Gates before he (with a little help from me screaming and pointing
to the lever) figured it out and the engine spooled up enough to get us
climbing.

Never again! Where to you suppose that item is on the checklist?

Charlie Springer
Hey! My discharge says I get a citation I never received. I looked at the paper
work to get the little medal and ribbon and decided I should find a place to
buy one if I want. It must be a lot easier :-)

Mike Marron

September 28th 03, 06:46 AM

> (Regnirps) wrote:

>I went flying once with a guy who talks like you.

The fact remains, you've never flown with me.

-Mike (anytime) Marron

John Keeney

September 28th 03, 07:55 AM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> > (Regnirps) wrote:
>
> >I went flying once with a guy who talks like you.
>
> The fact remains, you've never flown with me.

Sounds like a wise choice on his part.

Mike Marron

September 28th 03, 08:24 AM

>"John Keeney" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>The fact remains, you've never flown with me.

>Sounds like a wise choice on his part.

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Steven P. McNicoll

September 28th 03, 01:41 PM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> Lemme guess, you are a United States Air Force technician now with
> a United States Federal Aviation Administration Private Pilot
> Certificate?
>

Lemme observe, you have a huge ego and damn little to justify it.

Mike Marron

September 28th 03, 07:27 PM

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>Lemme guess, you are a United States Air Force technician now with
>>a United States Federal Aviation Administration Private Pilot
>>Certificate?

>Lemme observe, you have a huge ego and damn little to justify it.

I'll take that as a "yea." I hate to burst your bubble but you,
McNicoll, simply are in no position to judge my abilities as
a pilot (or anyone else's for that matter). It's laughable and
preposterous for someone like you with your paltry credentials
and experience to sit there at your computer and arrogantly
boast, "I'm more pilot than you can ever hope to be." [yawn]

Steven P. McNicoll

September 29th 03, 01:32 AM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'll take that as a "yea." I hate to burst your bubble but you,
> McNicoll, simply are in no position to judge my abilities as
> a pilot (or anyone else's for that matter). It's laughable and
> preposterous for someone like you with your paltry credentials
> and experience to sit there at your computer and arrogantly
> boast, "I'm more pilot than you can ever hope to be." [yawn]
>

You're not bursting anyone's bubble. I made my judgment from your messages,
which indicate you're long on ego and short on knowledge of aviation
matters.

Mike Marron

September 29th 03, 03:19 AM

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>I'll take that as a "yea." I hate to burst your bubble but you,
>>McNicoll, simply are in no position to judge my abilities as
>>a pilot (or anyone else's for that matter). It's laughable and
>>preposterous for someone like you with your paltry credentials
>>and experience to sit there at your computer and arrogantly
>>boast, "I'm more pilot than you can ever hope to be." [yawn]

>You're not bursting anyone's bubble. I made my judgment from your messages,
>which indicate you're long on ego and short on knowledge of aviation
>matters.

Hiya Steve. Had another great flight today in Two Juliet Tango. How
'bout you -- doing any flying lately? After reading your note above,
as a CFII I was just thinking that if you can drag yourself away from
your 'puter that you really should add on an IFR rating to your basic
private pilot's license. It just may save your butt someday should you
decide to actually fly airplanes rather than just talk about flying
airplanes. In the meantime, be careful and watch out for them clouds.
We don't want ya flying in them things!

Orval Fairbairn

September 29th 03, 05:06 AM

In article >,
Mike Marron > wrote:

> > (Regnirps) wrote:
>
> >I went flying once with a guy who talks like you.
>
> The fact remains, you've never flown with me.
>
> -Mike (anytime) Marron

Well, Mike, after reading your posts and getting a pretty good feel for
your attitude, I don't think that I would WANT to fly with you! You have
shown nothing but contempt for other pilots and their (unknown to you )
experience.

May you shape before you have to ship out!

Orval Fairbairn

September 29th 03, 05:08 AM

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

> "Mike Marron" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Lemme guess, you are a United States Air Force technician now with
> > a United States Federal Aviation Administration Private Pilot
> > Certificate?
> >
>
> Lemme observe, you have a huge ego and damn little to justify it.
>
>

I am not sure whether Mike is conceited or egotistical. As we all know,
conceit is THINKING you are great; egotism is KNOWING it.

Methinks Mike falls int the "conceited" category!

Dudley Henriques

September 29th 03, 05:18 AM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> >>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
>
> >>I'll take that as a "yea." I hate to burst your bubble but you,
> >>McNicoll, simply are in no position to judge my abilities as
> >>a pilot (or anyone else's for that matter). It's laughable and
> >>preposterous for someone like you with your paltry credentials
> >>and experience to sit there at your computer and arrogantly
> >>boast, "I'm more pilot than you can ever hope to be." [yawn]
>
> >You're not bursting anyone's bubble. I made my judgment from your
messages,
> >which indicate you're long on ego and short on knowledge of aviation
> >matters.
>
> Hiya Steve. Had another great flight today in Two Juliet Tango. How
> 'bout you -- doing any flying lately? After reading your note above,
> as a CFII I was just thinking that if you can drag yourself away from
> your 'puter that you really should add on an IFR rating to your basic
> private pilot's license. It just may save your butt someday should you
> decide to actually fly airplanes rather than just talk about flying
> airplanes. In the meantime, be careful and watch out for them clouds.
> We don't want ya flying in them things!

Oh Bull**** Marron; put a f*****g lid on it will you for God's sake. Grow
up!!

I've been reading this absolute crap you've been throwing out here all damn
day and I'm sick of it. FWIW, you can add me to the growing list of
dissatisfied customers for what you're selling out here. I don't know what
the hell your pilot quals are and I frankly don't give a flying f**k. From
what I'm reading, I wouldn't get within ten miles of anything you were
flying. So far, I make your emotional makeup at about the frustrated junior
high school level and your "qualifications" somewhere around those enjoyed
by immature wannabes with little plastic sticks on the desks in front of
them.
Nobody gives a flying **** what you can fly and what ratings you have. On
Usenet, it's only the quality of the information you pass that matters, and
your "quality" is beginning to grate on me. Now I can't stop you from
posting this ****. Go right ahead and post on for all I care, but I'll tell
you this. You'll never again be engaged by me at least in anything of a
serious nature on this newsgroup.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
For personal e-mail, use
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
(replacezwithe)

Mike Marron

September 29th 03, 06:06 AM

>Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>The fact remains, you've never flown with me.

>Well, Mike, after reading your posts and getting a pretty good feel for
>your attitude, I don't think that I would WANT to fly with you! You have
>shown nothing but contempt for other pilots and their (unknown to you )
>experience.

If you've been reading my posts as you said you were then it should
be obvious that I pretty much hold pilots (esp. fighter pilots) in
high esteem. And it pains me to do it, but these days I routinely turn
folks down who do call me up wanting to fly. So it's perfectly OK by
me if you don't want to fly with me. Really it is! After conducting
countless introductory flights and lessons and flying extraordinarily
hazardous single-pilot IFR etc. sorry but quite frankly I'm tapped out
and would prefer to fly solo just for my own personal enjoyment
instead. However, regardless of whether they flew high performance
jet fighters or Cessna 172's, the first words out of the mouths of
folks who I do take up from time to time is "Holy ****!" and their
parting words are usually something along the lines of, "That was
awesome thanks!" Making others happy still can be rewarding.

>May you shape before you have to ship out!

Hard to genuflect online, but damn I'm good!

[jus' kidding]

Mike Marron

September 29th 03, 06:44 AM

>Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>> Lemme observe, you have a huge ego and damn little to justify it.

>I am not sure whether Mike is conceited or egotistical. As we all know,
>conceit is THINKING you are great; egotism is KNOWING it.

>Methinks Mike falls int the "conceited" category!

You're just being just as irrational as McNicoll when he boasted
thusly:

************************************************** ************

"I'm more pilot than you can ever hope to be."

************************************************** ************

Now, tell me, whose the one here unable to justify his EGO?

Mike Marron

September 29th 03, 07:08 AM

>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>Oh Bull**** Marron; put a f*****g lid on it will you for God's sake. Grow
>up!!

>I've been reading this absolute crap you've been throwing out here all damn
>day and I'm sick of it. FWIW, you can add me to the growing list of
>dissatisfied customers for what you're selling out here. I don't know what
>the hell your pilot quals are and I frankly don't give a flying f**k. From
>what I'm reading, I wouldn't get within ten miles of anything you were
>flying. So far, I make your emotional makeup at about the frustrated junior
>high school level and your "qualifications" somewhere around those enjoyed
>by immature wannabes with little plastic sticks on the desks in front of
>them.
>Nobody gives a flying **** what you can fly and what ratings you have. On
>Usenet, it's only the quality of the information you pass that matters, and
>your "quality" is beginning to grate on me. Now I can't stop you from
>posting this ****. Go right ahead and post on for all I care, but I'll tell
>you this. You'll never again be engaged by me at least in anything of a
>serious nature on this newsgroup.
>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
>For personal e-mail, use
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>(replacezwithe)

Cute rant there, Dud. Nothing of substance, but rather chock full of
irrational, uncalled-for namecalling, profanity and hypocricy (BTW,
I've known a real fighter pilot, and YOU damn sure ain't no fighter
pilot!) A whole lotta' sizzle and no bacon but I'm still willing to
wager a bucket of cornseed on you vs. Rasimus mano-mano
in the air. And as far as your boy McNicoll's boast that he's "more
pilot than I can ever hope to be," well, I stand by what everything I
wrote.

Have a nice life Dud! :-))))

Dave Holford

September 29th 03, 02:37 PM

If the first words out of a passenger were "Holy ****", I would have
some serious concerns about the driver - whatever type of vehicle they
were driving.

Dave

Mike Marron

September 29th 03, 03:44 PM

>Dave Holford > wrote:

>If the first words out of a passenger were "Holy ****", I would have
>some serious concerns about the driver - whatever type of vehicle they
>were driving.

The "type of vehicle" is a flexwing trike capable of carrying one and
a half times their empty weight. When I took my first ride as a pax in
one back in '96, I probably whooped "holy ****" or something similiar
myself. The performance is truly amazing and hardly what one
would expect from such a small and simple flying machine.

First of all, you strap into one of these things and there's no
structure around you to offer any sense of security whatsoever.
Then, after a surpisingly short takeoff roll (approx. 200 ft. max
2-up) you literally leap off the ground and climb out at a
breathtakingly steep angle. Nothing at all like those
characteristically flat, booooring climb angles of those spamcans
you've seen taking off at your local GA airport.

The unobstructed view of the ground rapidly falling away below
you is unforgettable. Flying an open-air, flexwing trike is inherently
risky and definitely *not* for the feint of heart. But if you're the
thrillseeker personality type, I guarantee you that nothing else on
Earth delivers more bang for the buck.

In short, I begin to worry if I DON'T hear "holy ****" through the
backseaters intercom!

Steven P. McNicoll

September 29th 03, 07:52 PM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> You're just being just as irrational as McNicoll when he boasted
> thusly:
>
> ************************************************** ************
>
> "I'm more pilot than you can ever hope to be."
>
> ************************************************** ************
>
> Now, tell me, whose the one here unable to justify his EGO?
>

You.

Mike Marron

September 29th 03, 07:57 PM

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>You.

****.

MLenoch

September 29th 03, 11:26 PM

> Mike Marron

wrote:>****.

I hope no one ever has you as a CFI. With that type of a response, learning
will be severly hindered.
VL

Orval Fairbairn

September 30th 03, 05:25 AM

In article >,
(MLenoch) wrote:

> > Mike Marron
>
> wrote:>****.
>
> I hope no one ever has you as a CFI. With that type of a response, learning
> will be severly hindered.
> VL

If he ever flies military, I can hazard a guess as to the call sign his
squadron mates assign him: "Moron."

Steven P. McNicoll

September 30th 03, 05:37 AM

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>
> If he ever flies military,
>

Not a chance. It's a wonder he holds any license at all.

Mike Marron

September 30th 03, 04:19 PM

>"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

>Not a chance. It's a wonder he holds any license at all.

Feel free to inform Dave Smith, the FAA inspector with whom
I took my Part 135, single-pilot IFR checkride that. After he laughs
in your face and throws your ignorant ass out of his office, then go
look up any one of the dozens other professional pilots both
ex-military and civilian whom I've flown with and tell them that as
well. As a retired fighter jock and esteemed listmember recently
told Tarver on this NG, you Mr. McNicoll remain one of the lowest,
most despicable, forms of animal life. For someone who has never
received nary a dime as a professional pilot, for you to demean,
discredit and accuse without basis is an outrage. Nothwithstanding
of course your REALLY earth-shattering contributions lately such as
Yeager was the "first to break the sound barrier (duh) and the
Wright's were the "first to achieve powered flight" (no ****?) and no
"prop plane has ever achieved supersonic flight" (yawn).

MLenoch

September 30th 03, 04:55 PM

> Mike Marron

wrote:>Feel free to inform Dave Smith, the FAA inspector with whom
>I took my Part 135, single-pilot IFR checkride that.

OOOhhhhhhhhh. Pt. 135!!
VL

Ron

September 30th 03, 06:02 PM

>> Mike Marron
>
>wrote:>Feel free to inform Dave Smith, the FAA inspector with whom
>>I took my Part 135, single-pilot IFR checkride that.
>
>OOOhhhhhhhhh. Pt. 135!!
>VL
>

Single Pilot IFR 135 multi engine piston can be some of the hardest checkrides
in civilian aviation, and the workload is pretty damn high. Most of my friends
who have gone from the pt 135 freight world to the airlines, say the flying
part of the 121 checkrides is a lot easier, but you have to know much more
about systems and limitations. In 121 you have lots more bells and whistles,
plus an extra crew member to help, while in 135, its usually just you, and
flying off of raw data. Airline pilots consider raw data an emergency
situation (grin)

Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

MLenoch

September 30th 03, 10:26 PM

>Single Pilot IFR 135 multi engine piston can be some of the hardest
>checkrides
>in civilian aviation, and the workload is pretty damn high.

Yes, I know. However, the value of the carrige is usually less.
VL

Gordon

September 30th 03, 11:45 PM

There was no report made by JG 7 or any other Me 262 unit of a fighter
sustaining damage on a training flight on the day Mutke claims. Even his
squadron mates consider Mutke a bizarre character and this postwar fabrication
fits with the rest of his personality. Rob, even MUTKE disagrees with what
that website claims for a speed on that flight - he corrected it when I sent it
to him in print. That you ignore this, and steadfastly refuse to contact Mutke
yourself or do any independent research of any kind, indicate you are a little
******.

Aren't you?

Gordon

Steven P. McNicoll

October 1st 03, 04:10 AM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> As a retired fighter jock and esteemed listmember recently
> told Tarver on this NG, you Mr. McNicoll remain one of the lowest,
> most despicable, forms of animal life.
>

I don't recall those words being used to describe me.

>
> For someone who has never received nary a dime as a professional pilot,
> for you to demean, discredit and accuse without basis is an outrage.
>

I've done nothing like that. The messages you've posted in these forums
have discredited you. They indicate you have a rather poor knowledge of the
FARs and a mindset that's likely to get you in trouble some day. Hopefully,
you'll be solo when it does.

Mike Marron

October 1st 03, 04:18 AM

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

[bla blah]

>I've done nothing like that. The messages you've posted in these forums
>have discredited you. They indicate you have a rather poor knowledge of the
>FARs and a mindset that's likely to get you in trouble some day. Hopefully,
>you'll be solo when it does.

Fly pretty, anyone can fly safe.

MLenoch

October 1st 03, 04:49 AM

> Mike Marron

wrote:>Fly pretty, anyone can fly safe.

You already sound dangerous. Overconfidence kills so easily. My condolences
to you and your family, prior to the event.
VL

Mike Marron

October 1st 03, 04:55 AM

> (MLenoch) wrote:
>> Mike Marron wrote:

>>Fly pretty, anyone can fly safe.

>You already sound dangerous. Overconfidence kills so easily.
> My condolences to you and your family, prior to the event.

Jus' remember, fly pretty, anyone can fly safe.

-Mike (ain't life grand!) Marron

Orval Fairbairn

October 1st 03, 04:59 AM

In article >,
Mike Marron > wrote:

> >"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> [bla blah]
>
> >I've done nothing like that. The messages you've posted in these forums
> >have discredited you. They indicate you have a rather poor knowledge of the
> >FARs and a mindset that's likely to get you in trouble some day. Hopefully,
> >you'll be solo when it does.
>
> Fly pretty, anyone can fly safe.

I, for one, hope that Mike learns eventually to do both!

Mike Marron

October 1st 03, 05:16 AM

>Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>Fly pretty, anyone can fly safe.

>I, for one, hope that Mike learns eventually to do both!

And I, for one, hope that Orval learns eventually to do his twin
brother Anal!

!!!ROTFLFAO!!!

Steve Hix

October 1st 03, 05:29 AM

> > Mike Marron wrote:
>
>Fly pretty, anyone can fly safe.

Demonstrably untrue.

Doubly unfortunate for innocent passengers and
bystanders.

Corey C. Jordan

October 1st 03, 07:12 AM

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 03:18:19 GMT, Mike Marron > wrote:

>Fly pretty, anyone can fly safe.

Hmmm....

I kinda like "fly safe, anyone can fly stupid".

I don't know what you set out to prove, but I do know that you did
a swell job of deep sixing your credibility with your thoughtless
comments.

Frankly, I think Steven has demonstrated great restraint considering
that you blasted him without any cause whatsoever.

There was no need to spout off with, "Since you ain't a pilot, you regurgitated
that one by rote, huh?"

Steven had made a perfectly legitimate statement about the Me 262 being
unable to achieve Mach 1 "in any attitude".

This comment; "Lemme guess, you're a former air force grease monkey now with
a private pilot's license? [snicker]" is incredibly arrogant as it insults many
dedicated and skilled people who keep weenies like you alive by making sure you
have a safe aircraft. Try saying that to the guy who maintains your plane and
tell us about it after you return from the emergency room where they will
carefully remove the safetywire pliers from your ear canal. It also belittles
those people who are content to enjoy a few hours of VFR sightseeing each month.
Bad form Mike.

How about this nonsense? "I've known a real fighter pilot, and YOU damn sure
ain't no fighter pilot!) A whole lotta' sizzle and no bacon but I'm still
willing to wager a bucket of cornseed on you vs. Rasimus mano-mano
in the air."

Listen Junior, before you were a gleam in your momma's eye, Dudley had
established himself among his peers as one hell of pilot. Including Dudley, I
have a great many friends in the Fighter Pilot community. Not one of them would
tolerate a guy like the one you portray. Such a person would find themselves
bound in a blanket, head-down in the latrine vomiting their guts out.

Wise up Mike, show some respect for people.

Dudley mentioned Herb Fisher earlier in the 262 threads. Check out Herb and
his accomplishments. He was the only civilian pilot to awarded the Air Medal
in WWII. He was as unassuming a man as you could imagine, but a brilliant pilot
and engineer. You on the other hand, are utterly self-absorbed, and feel
compelled to assault anyone to defend your personal perception of your self-
importance.

Get a life while they're to be had.

My regards

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

Mike Marron

October 1st 03, 07:32 AM

(Corey C. Jordan) wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>Fly pretty, anyone can fly safe.

>Hmmm....

>I kinda like "fly safe, anyone can fly stupid".

>I don't know what you set out to prove, but I do know that you did
>a swell job of deep sixing your credibility with your thoughtless
>comments.

>Frankly, I think Steven has demonstrated great restraint considering
>that you blasted him without any cause whatsoever.

>There was no need to spout off with, "Since you ain't a pilot, you regurgitated
>that one by rote, huh?"

>Steven had made a perfectly legitimate statement about the Me 262 being
>unable to achieve Mach 1 "in any attitude".

>This comment; "Lemme guess, you're a former air force grease monkey now with
>a private pilot's license? [snicker]" is incredibly arrogant as it insults many
>dedicated and skilled people who keep weenies like you alive by making sure you
>have a safe aircraft. Try saying that to the guy who maintains your plane and
>tell us about it after you return from the emergency room where they will
>carefully remove the safetywire pliers from your ear canal. It also belittles
>those people who are content to enjoy a few hours of VFR sightseeing each month.
>Bad form Mike.

>How about this nonsense? "I've known a real fighter pilot, and YOU damn sure
>ain't no fighter pilot!) A whole lotta' sizzle and no bacon but I'm still
>willing to wager a bucket of cornseed on you vs. Rasimus mano-mano
>in the air."

>Listen Junior, before you were a gleam in your momma's eye, Dudley had
>established himself among his peers as one hell of pilot. Including Dudley, I
>have a great many friends in the Fighter Pilot community. Not one of them would
>tolerate a guy like the one you portray. Such a person would find themselves
>bound in a blanket, head-down in the latrine vomiting their guts out.

>Wise up Mike, show some respect for people.

>Dudley mentioned Herb Fisher earlier in the 262 threads. Check out Herb and
>his accomplishments. He was the only civilian pilot to awarded the Air Medal
>in WWII. He was as unassuming a man as you could imagine, but a brilliant pilot
>and engineer. You on the other hand, are utterly self-absorbed, and feel
>compelled to assault anyone to defend your personal perception of your self-
>importance.

>Get a life while they're to be had.

>My regards

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

Damn, "w i d e w i n g " is right!

Seriously tho, excellent note and you bring up some interesting.
points. Thanks!

[email protected]

October 1st 03, 12:45 PM

Mike Marron > wrote:

>
>Seriously tho, excellent note and you bring up some interesting.
>points. Thanks!
>
>
Colour me amazed.

Congrats CC, you actually got through all that brass?...fricking
astounding indeed...
--

-Gord.

Corey C. Jordan

October 1st 03, 11:27 PM

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 11:45:12 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

> Colour me amazed.
>
>Congrats CC, you actually got through all that brass?...fricking
>astounding indeed...
>--
>
>-Gord.

I don't think we should judge Mike too harshly. I for one have written things
here in a fit of pique which I came to regret immediately.

Sometimes we go too far, we're human (in my case at least, that's the rumor).

My regards,

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

B2431

October 2nd 03, 02:34 AM

What seems so be missing from this dicussion is no one said "manned supersonic
flight."

The first unmanned supersonic flights were some types of bullets fired in the
late 1800s. As far as flying machines being super sonic the Nazi A-4 did it
before the Me262 even flew.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Steven P. McNicoll

October 2nd 03, 02:37 AM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
> What seems so be missing from this dicussion is no one said "manned
supersonic
> flight."
>
> The first unmanned supersonic flights were some types of bullets fired in
the
> late 1800s. As far as flying machines being super sonic the Nazi A-4 did
it
> before the Me262 even flew.
>

I assumed by "flight" the discussion was limited to airborne vehicles.

Orval Fairbairn

October 2nd 03, 04:33 AM

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> What seems so be missing from this dicussion is no one said "manned supersonic
> flight."
>
> The first unmanned supersonic flights were some types of bullets fired in the
> late 1800s. As far as flying machines being super sonic the Nazi A-4 did it
> before the Me262 even flew.
>
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

No, the first manmade supersonic flight was the tip of a whip, at some
time buried in the sands of history.

Mike Marron

October 2nd 03, 04:49 AM

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 22:27:59 GMT,
(Corey C. Jordan) wrote:

>I don't think we should judge Mike too harshly. I for one have written things
>here in a fit of pique which I came to regret immediately.

>Sometimes we go too far, we're human (in my case at least, that's the rumor).

Appreciate the kind words, CC. With regards to this "arrogance" vis a
vis "humility" thing and showing "respect" for others, I took your
advice and have been reading up about Herb Fisher and other fighter
pilots on your great website.

After digesting what I read on your site and perusing through the
notes posted earlier in this thread, one of the outstanding
characteristics that strikes me about pilots is how contradictory
we often are as a group.

For example, one minute we're embracing the "...no old bold pilots"
adage and then some jock turns around and exclaims, "show
me a humble fighter pilot and I'll show you a dead fighter pilot." The
dichotomy is amazing, but I suppose it has to be that way given how
absolutes in aviation are rare as hen's teeth.

Another classic contradiction that smacks of hypocricy is the guy
who trots out his qualifications in his .sig in each one of his posts
then turns around in the same breath and writes, "I don't know what
the hell your pilot quals are and I frankly don't give a flying f**k."
That, after he just told me to "grow up!" Mind boggling stuff.

Of course, for the most part I'm only kidding when I write "fly pretty
anyone can fly safe" or use the term "grease monkey" (hell, I'm a
grease monkey myself!) but the fact is that I know what my right
size is as both pilot and a mechanic (I'm much better at breaking
'em than I am fixing 'em). If I didn't know my limitations, chances
are I would've died back a few thousand hours earlier in my flying
career especially considering the relatively hazardous nature of
the type of flying.

OTOH, I've lost count of the number of my pilot buds who, for whatever
reason (such as lack of humility or equally as bad -- FALSE humility)
failed to come to recognize their own personal limitations and paid
the ultimate price. Ironically, they often spend their entire lives
submerging their pride, feigning humility and saying all the right
things at the right time so as to obtain their goals in this life.

I knew one such guy who killed himself flying a flexwing trike (yep,
an ULTRALIGHT) last spring in Ohio. This guy had some mighty
impressive credentials indeed; thousands of hours in the F-15, a
graduate of the USAF test pilot school and currently gainfully
employed as a B777 co-pilot. Despite all his experience and
credentials, everyone considered him a likable, humble and
basically just an all-around great fellow. But deep down
I personally always thought the guy was cocky as hell and
watched him from a safe distance with a discerning eye.

Don't get me wrong, given his impressive qualifications and
experience I never doubted that he was indeed an excellent military,
airline and test pilot. But, flexwing trikes are whole different ball
game due to their low mass, kinetic energy etc. and their
susceptibility to wind/gusts causing a sudden loss of control both in
the air and on the ground.

A local pilot reported that two evenings earlier, he saw him flying
a number of steeply banked unpowered approaches in his trike
and each pattern was characterized by very precise and clean flying.

Now, practicing engine-off landings is all well and good, but
according to one weather report I've seen, on the day the guy died the
wind was gusting to 21 kts. If we use the "1/2 wind velocity plus best
L/D speed" guideline we can assume a safe approach should be made
at 50 kts. in CALM air in that particular machine.

Stall on the wing he was flying is about 30 kts. so if he was in a
steep bank at say 40 kts. on approach (e.g: 10 kts. above stall or
best engine-off L/D speed) while attempting to stretch the glide to
the runway, a drop of 21 kts. wind speed due to a gust would easily
put him in a stall by 10 kts. That wouldn't be a shallow stall either,
but a deep stall. Imagine you are swooshing down at best L/D speed
in a 45-deg angle of bank then suddenly at 30 ft AGL the airspeed
drops 21 kts. You are now in a deep stall at only 30 ft AGL.

Furthur exacerbating the problem, as you attempt to recover and enter
the wind gradient near the ground the airspeed doesn't increase as
expected. Must have felt like the fuggen wing was broken! The ground
rush really must have been alarming and the rise in airspeed would
have been slower than the rate of decent toward the ground because
of the gradient.

The bottom line is that this particular "humble" yet highly trained
and experienced ex-military fighter and test pilot was flying too slow
and too steeply banked for the conditions. Whether he was practicing
his emergency procedures (e.g: dead-stick landings) or simply shining
his ass by landing in gusty winds with the engine intentionally shut
down is debatable. But whatever the reason, he paid for his mistake
with his life and I don't plan on repeating his mistake. Flying
"pretty" and flying "safe" aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Dudley Henriques

October 2nd 03, 05:44 AM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...

> Another classic contradiction that smacks of hypocricy is the guy
> who trots out his qualifications in his .sig in each one of his posts
> then turns around in the same breath and writes, "I don't know what
> the hell your pilot quals are and I frankly don't give a flying f**k."
> That, after he just told me to "grow up!" Mind boggling stuff.

Please allow me to educate you on something if I may. The signature file I
use
"Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
For personal e-mail, use
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
(replacezwithe)"
is in no way even beginning to touch on my "qualifications". It's used for a
specific reason and in no way is meant to "impress". The IFPF tag is simply
there for those who happen on the group and might remember our association
and wish to write to me for updates and/or current information on something
I can provide. The "pilot" tags are a simple expression of general
background only.
I seldom engage in "can you top this" dialog with posters on Usenet, as you
can see from this post, where I'm not even close to stating for you a resume
of my "accomplishments" :-))
As I said to you before, no one really cares about these things. Your
experience will show to one and all in the quality and accuracy of your
information. Although being normal, I have succumbed on occasion to taking
on people like yourself, in this case I don't care to do that. It just isn't
that important to me that you be "impressed" :-))
I answered your post to Stephen because you were out of line on several
counts. You're out of line with me as well, but that's your choice. I'm a
big boy and will survive the encounter I'm sure. :-)
If I might make a respectful suggestion to you Mike; there's no need for you
to take the attitude you have with some of us on this forum. In the end you
will gain little if nothing from taking us on. We've all seen it many times
before. Most of us know each other, and have known each other for years.
Many of us have thousands of hours flying all sorts of airplanes. Some are
historians; some are just people interested in military aviation. From time
to time we'll get into our "qualifications" but for the majority of us it's
just friendly competition. We all know from years of reading what each of us
has written who is "qualified" at what. Believe me it's no secret out here
who the people are who are "qualified" and who are not.
You seem to like the Ultralights. That's fine. They require a great deal of
expertise to handle safely and properly. We all know that. We don't need you
to tell us this, or compare what we do against what you do. Instead of
taking us on, why don't you just join in with us; accept the fact that most
of us here know what the hell we're talking about, and instead of taking us
on with all this vitriolic rhetoric, just engage us in a more friendly
manner.
Take Steven for example. He flies a 65 horse Aeronca Champ. His knowledge
however far exceeds the "difficulty" factor for the tiny airplane he flies.
He knows a lot about a lot of things and has been posting here for many
years. He's blunt sometimes, but not in any way worthy of the blistering
crap you were throwing his way. The bottom line is this. You have on this
group a real assorted bunch of extremely talented and knowledgeable people.
If you intend to hang around here for any length of time, you might want to
rethink your approach a bit.
I'll let it go at this and instead of listing for you the four pages of my
"qualifications", I'll hope instead that you reconsider where you want to go
with this group and perhaps give it another try in a different direction.
All the best,
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
For personal e-mail, use
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
(replacezwithe)

Jack

October 2nd 03, 06:07 AM

in article , Mike Marron at
wrote on 2003/10/01 22:49:

> ...I've lost count of the number of my pilot buds who, for whatever
> reason (such as lack of humility or equally as bad -- FALSE humility)
> failed to come to recognize their own personal limitations and paid
> the ultimate price. Ironically, they often spend their entire lives
> submerging their pride, feigning humility and saying all the right
> things at the right time so as to obtain their goals in this life.

O.K., I think I've got it now: because you act like a prick on r.a.m., you
figure that you are, as a result, less vulnerable to dangerous flying
mistakes.

Who knew flight safety could be so simple?

Jack

Mike Marron

October 2nd 03, 06:54 AM

>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>Another classic contradiction that smacks of hypocricy is the guy
>>who trots out his qualifications in his .sig in each one of his posts
>>then turns around in the same breath and writes, "I don't know what
>>the hell your pilot quals are and I frankly don't give a flying f**k."
>>That, after he just told me to "grow up!" Mind boggling stuff.

>Please allow me to educate you on something if I may. The signature file I
>use
>"Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
>For personal e-mail, use
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>(replacezwithe)"
>is in no way even beginning to touch on my "qualifications". It's used for a
>specific reason and in no way is meant to "impress". The IFPF tag is simply
>there for those who happen on the group and might remember our association
>and wish to write to me for updates and/or current information on something
>I can provide. The "pilot" tags are a simple expression of general
>background only.
>I seldom engage in "can you top this" dialog with posters on Usenet, as you
>can see from this post, where I'm not even close to stating for you a resume
>of my "accomplishments" :-))

OK. Thanks for the clarification.

>As I said to you before, no one really cares about these things. Your
>experience will show to one and all in the quality and accuracy of your
>information.

Agreed. Hence the reason I rarely mention my credentials.

>Although being normal, I have succumbed on occasion to taking
>on people like yourself, in this case I don't care to do that. It just isn't
>that important to me that you be "impressed" :-))

Nor is it important to me if it's not's important to you! ;)

>I answered your post to Stephen because you were out of line on several
>counts. You're out of line with me as well, but that's your choice. I'm a
>big boy and will survive the encounter I'm sure. :-)

I'll concede to being out of line with you but with all due respect,
ya' gotta admit that you did throw the first punch and it was kinda'
of a sucker punch at that. I'll also concede to being out of line
with Stephen with regards to the "attitude" thing (I thought he
misspelled altitude). Having said that, I remain convinced that he's
the one whose totally out of line with regards to some other stuff
that he's posted but I'd rather not waste your time or mine by
rehashing it at this time.

>If I might make a respectful suggestion to you Mike; there's no need for you
>to take the attitude you have with some of us on this forum. In the end you
>will gain little if nothing from taking us on. We've all seen it many times
>before. Most of us know each other, and have known each other for years.
>Many of us have thousands of hours flying all sorts of airplanes. Some are
>historians; some are just people interested in military aviation. From time
>to time we'll get into our "qualifications" but for the majority of us it's
>just friendly competition. We all know from years of reading what each of us
>has written who is "qualified" at what. Believe me it's no secret out here
>who the people are who are "qualified" and who are not.
>You seem to like the Ultralights. That's fine. They require a great deal of
>expertise to handle safely and properly. We all know that. We don't need you
>to tell us this, or compare what we do against what you do. Instead of
>taking us on, why don't you just join in with us; accept the fact that most
>of us here know what the hell we're talking about, and instead of taking us
>on with all this vitriolic rhetoric, just engage us in a more friendly
>manner.

Nicely said and done deal.

>Take Steven for example. He flies a 65 horse Aeronca Champ.

Aeronca Champ huh? One of my fave books was "Flight of Passage" by
Rinker Buck. And one of my fave quotes in that book (no offense to
Stephen or any other Champ owners out there!) is, "The Champ can't
climb fer ****!"

>His knowledge however far exceeds the "difficulty" factor for the tiny airplane
>he flies. He knows a lot about a lot of things and has been posting here for many
>years. He's blunt sometimes, but not in any way worthy of the blistering
>crap you were throwing his way.

Again, I'll concede my mistake assuming he meant "altitude" instead
of "attitude," however, like I said I'm still convinced that he was
totally out of line with regards to some other stuff that he's posted
which I won't waste your time or mine by rehashing it at this time.

>The bottom line is this. You have on this group a real assorted bunch of extremely
>talented and knowledgeable people. If you intend to hang around here for any length
>of time, you might want to rethink your approach a bit.

FWIW, I've been around here (mostly lurking) for many years myself but
only recently started actively posting. I'll take your suggestion and
try a different approach (in fact, I went "missed" last night after
being gently ****hammered by CC).

>I'll let it go at this and instead of listing for you the four pages of my
>"qualifications", I'll hope instead that you reconsider where you want to go
>with this group and perhaps give it another try in a different direction.

Speaking of which, I'd be interested in your qualifications. After
reading about Herb Fisher on CC's site (I've also read about other
famed civilian test pilots such as LeVier? and Cochran, Lindbergh,
etc. etc.) I've always wondered how a civilian is fortunate enough to
find him/herself in the cockpit of a powerful fighter aircraft. Pardon
my ignorance, but one would think that the military would mandate
you to get your commission and be an active service member
before allowing you to fly high performance military A/C, no? If
you had your druthers, wouldn't you prefer to be an active
servicemember anyway so as to have the opportunity to actually
USE your skills in combat? Just wondering.

Thanks!

B2431

October 2nd 03, 09:10 AM

>>
>> What seems so be missing from this dicussion is no one said "manned
>supersonic
>> flight."
>>
>> The first unmanned supersonic flights were some types of bullets fired in
>the
>> late 1800s. As far as flying machines being super sonic the Nazi A-4 did
>it
>> before the Me262 even flew.
>>
>
>I assumed by "flight" the discussion was limited to airborne vehicles.
>
Of course :)

Just injecting a little levity. I do this with people who tell me "before
Yeager no one believed supersonic flight was possible" or that "it was thought
the sound barrier was impenetrable." In this case there seems to be some
arguing so I decided to lighten things up a tad.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Dudley Henriques

October 2nd 03, 04:10 PM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

> Speaking of which, I'd be interested in your qualifications. After
> reading about Herb Fisher on CC's site (I've also read about other
> famed civilian test pilots such as LeVier? and Cochran, Lindbergh,
> etc. etc.) I've always wondered how a civilian is fortunate enough to
> find him/herself in the cockpit of a powerful fighter aircraft. Pardon
> my ignorance, but one would think that the military would mandate
> you to get your commission and be an active service member
> before allowing you to fly high performance military A/C, no? If
> you had your druthers, wouldn't you prefer to be an active
> servicemember anyway so as to have the opportunity to actually
> USE your skills in combat? Just wondering.
>
> Thanks!

I have forwarded to you via back channel email, a representative biography
as you have requested.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
For personal e-mail, use
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
(replacezwithe)

Mike Marron

October 2nd 03, 04:38 PM

>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>Speaking of which, I'd be interested in your qualifications. After
>>reading about Herb Fisher on CC's site (I've also read about other
>>famed civilian test pilots such as LeVier? and Cochran, Lindbergh,
>>etc. etc.) I've always wondered how a civilian is fortunate enough to
>>find him/herself in the cockpit of a powerful fighter aircraft. Pardon
>>my ignorance, but one would think that the military would mandate
>>you to get your commission and be an active service member
>>before allowing you to fly high performance military A/C, no? If
>>you had your druthers, wouldn't you prefer to be an active
>>servicemember anyway so as to have the opportunity to actually
>>USE your skills in combat? Just wondering.

>>Thanks!

>I have forwarded to you via back channel email, a representative biography
>as you have requested.

I appreciate you sending the info but I should have mentioned that the
"hotpop" email address shown above is nothing more than a sinkhole for
SPAM. Please re-send the message if you will to:

Thanks!

-Mike Marron

>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
>For personal e-mail, use
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>(replacezwithe)
>

Dudley Henriques

October 2nd 03, 07:08 PM

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (B2431) wrote:
>
> > What seems so be missing from this dicussion is no one said "manned
supersonic
> > flight."
> >
> > The first unmanned supersonic flights were some types of bullets fired
in the
> > late 1800s. As far as flying machines being super sonic the Nazi A-4 did
it
> > before the Me262 even flew.
> >
> >
> > Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
> No, the first manmade supersonic flight was the tip of a whip, at some
> time buried in the sands of history.

Actually, if you go into some "extensive research" you might discover that
the first supersonic flight was made in my classroom at a parochial military
academy when I was in the sixth grade by Sister Paskalina,(AKA Pasky :-)
when she caught me smoking in the bathroom and used that long hardwood
pointer she had with the little rubber tip on it on my open palm!! Little
did I know at that time that the "whoosh" I heard just before the pain of
contact, was the boundary layer separation at the leading edge of transonic
shock formation as that damn thing came down virtually on the very edge of
mach one!!! :-))))
I'm not absolutely certain, but to this day, when I look at my right palm, I
could SWEAR I see a welt line vaguely showing from upper right to lower
left.
:-)))))
Anyway, Pasky convinced me to give up smoking. To this day I don't touch the
damn things.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
For personal e-mail, use
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
(replacezwithe)

Mary Shafer

October 3rd 03, 03:03 AM

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:53:23 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>Furthermore, the 262 didn't make it through either. It's aerodynamic shape
>coupled with it's ability to create the thrust required didn't equate. There
>was no way the 262 would have been able to get high enough and accelerate
>fast enough in real time within the altitude restraints it could create. In
>other words, for the specific design of the 262, there simply wasn't enough
>sky up there to get it done. This is common knowledge in the flight test
>community. Even if it had the air available, the 262's drag index curve
>would never have allowed a total mach one airflow.

Well, ignoring the altitude limitation, I'm not sure if aerodynamics
has to matter. If a man without an airplane can fall from a balloon
fast enough to get supersonic, it seems that an airplane should do the
same. You know, going downhill with the wind at its back?

Other than this being highly unrealistic and totally impossible, of
course, it's a good argument. However, there is a reason that Yeager
is said to be the first to exceed Mach 1 in nearly level flight. It's
like the caveats on the Wrights.

>George Welch was probably the first through mach one. I realize this damn
>argument will go on forever, but Welch again is the general consensus of the
>flight test community......and Yeager is very much a member of this
>community :-)))

I have Chuck, Bob, Bob, Jack, and James's (Yeager, Cardenas, Hoover,
Russell, and Young) book, "The Quest for Mach One" right here
(autographed by Chuck because I bought it at the EDW museum). Not a
word about George Welch that I can find. Johnny Armstrong says the
X-1 was first, too, as did Jackie Ridley.

If that isn't "the flight test community", I don't know what is.

Even George Welch doesn't think he was first, according to both Dick
Hallion and Chuck Yeager. I heard Chuck say so when asked directly at
the 50th anniversary ceremony.

Mary
--
Mary Shafer
"There are only two types of aircraft--fighters and targets"
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC

Dudley Henriques

October 3rd 03, 03:55 AM

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:53:23 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
> >Furthermore, the 262 didn't make it through either. It's aerodynamic
shape
> >coupled with it's ability to create the thrust required didn't equate.
There
> >was no way the 262 would have been able to get high enough and accelerate
> >fast enough in real time within the altitude restraints it could create.
In
> >other words, for the specific design of the 262, there simply wasn't
enough
> >sky up there to get it done. This is common knowledge in the flight test
> >community. Even if it had the air available, the 262's drag index curve
> >would never have allowed a total mach one airflow.
>
> Well, ignoring the altitude limitation, I'm not sure if aerodynamics
> has to matter. If a man without an airplane can fall from a balloon
> fast enough to get supersonic, it seems that an airplane should do the
> same. You know, going downhill with the wind at its back?

The entire context of aerodynamic shape as it relates to the 262 doesn't
address the single factor that defines the shape. The context should address
the COMBINATION of the shape; thrust; AND the room available to put that
shape through mach 1. In my opinion the 262 just didn't have the right
combination of thrust to fight it's HUGE drag rise curve and get the job
done within any altitude vs time envelope available to it.
>
> Other than this being highly unrealistic and totally impossible, of
> course, it's a good argument. However, there is a reason that Yeager
> is said to be the first to exceed Mach 1 in nearly level flight. It's
> like the caveats on the Wrights.

I don't think anyone would disagree that Yeager was the first in "nearly
level flight". That simple caveat "level flight" seems to be the "issue"
that causes all the debate on who was actually first. The general statement
you hear most often from various sources both inside and outside the
military, regardless of the "official printed" release given at the time of
Yeager's flight, is that Yeager was the first to break mach one....or that
Yeager was the first to go supersonic....or that Yeager was the first to
break the sound barrier. Notice that all of these statements seem to omit
the level flight condition. This, coulped with a HUGE assortment of eye
witnessess ranging from North American employees, people on the range at
Edwards, on down to those who were sitting at the bar at Pancho's :-)) the
week before Yeager's flight when Welch was toying around with the 86, all
seem to confirm that Welch indeed did manage to go mach 1 in the prototype
Sabre.

>
> >George Welch was probably the first through mach one. I realize this damn
> >argument will go on forever, but Welch again is the general consensus of
the
> >flight test community......and Yeager is very much a member of this
> >community :-)))
>
> I have Chuck, Bob, Bob, Jack, and James's (Yeager, Cardenas, Hoover,
> Russell, and Young) book, "The Quest for Mach One" right here
> (autographed by Chuck because I bought it at the EDW museum). Not a
> word about George Welch that I can find. Johnny Armstrong says the
> X-1 was first, too, as did Jackie Ridley.
>
> If that isn't "the flight test community", I don't know what is.
>
> Even George Welch doesn't think he was first, according to both Dick
> Hallion and Chuck Yeager. I heard Chuck say so when asked directly at
> the 50th anniversary ceremony.
>
> Mary

Even Chilton couldn't say for sure. It's ironic, but of the few who were in
on it, a civilian named Millie Palmer would have been the best shot at a
certainty. Welch had told her to listen for the booms and she heard them.
Also, Welch not claiming he was first is absolutely within the context of
his personality as well as the extremely "unusual" circumstances that were
directly involved with his prototype flights in the 86 during the week prior
to Yeager's flight.
The official version gives mach one to Yeager. Welch was ok with that; a
real gentlemen. I would compare him in an instant to Red Barber, who existed
in very much the same conditions as Welch. Gentlemen both.
And this takes noting away from Yeager either; a fine gentlemen and an
absolutely great pilot. These things are what they are,,,,period! History
isn't always kind, and history sometimes doesn't tell the "entire" story.
It's not a lie.....not even a fabrication......it's just the way things go
down. You learn to live with it....just like George Welch did.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
For personal e-mail, use
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
(replacezwithe)

John Keeney

October 3rd 03, 05:57 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> Even Chilton couldn't say for sure. It's ironic, but of the few who were
in
> on it, a civilian named Millie Palmer would have been the best shot at a
> certainty. Welch had told her to listen for the booms and she heard them.
> Also, Welch not claiming he was first is absolutely within the context of
> his personality as well as the extremely "unusual" circumstances that were
> directly involved with his prototype flights in the 86 during the week
prior
> to Yeager's flight.

Curious, the "booms" (I note the plural form) were anticipated before
anyone flew Mach 1+?
While I suppose they would be predictable, I'ld be kind of surprised
that anyone had. Was there experience with unmanned missiles or
projectiles to showed it?

Corey C. Jordan

October 3rd 03, 07:48 AM

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:03:21 -0700, Mary Shafer > wrote:

>Even George Welch doesn't think he was first, according to both Dick
>Hallion and Chuck Yeager. I heard Chuck say so when asked directly at
>the 50th anniversary ceremony.

LOLOLOL

Welch has been dead for 49 years!

Don't you realize how rediculous the above statement sounds?

So, you assume that Yeager is being completely honest about this when it's
Yeager who has the most to gain (or maintain) if Welch wasn't first?!

I read Hallion's timeline that supposedly "proves" that Welch didn't have an
opportunity to dive the XP-86 through Mach 1. The only problem with Hallion's
theory is that it's at odds with the XP-86 log book and Welch's personal log
book. Now, you would think that the Official USAF Historian would have gotten
his hands on this important data, considering that I did by making a few phone
calls and sending a few e-mails. Hell, George's youngest son tracked ME down!

By the way, wasn't Riddley assigned to the XS-1 program? ;) Of course we
know he was eyeball deep in it. Another disinterested party...

All kinds of conflicts of interest here..... It seems that ENRON, Tyco and
Worldcom have nothing on the Air Force when it comes to forthright reporting.

As to who in the "flight test community" believes that Welch was first, it was
Al Blackburn (former President of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots) who
wrote the book that blew the lid off the story. By the way, that book was
published almost two years after you overheard Yeager speaking for a dead guy.

My regards,

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

John Halliwell

October 3rd 03, 12:24 PM

In article >, John Keeney >
writes
>Curious, the "booms" (I note the plural form) were anticipated before
>anyone flew Mach 1+?
>While I suppose they would be predictable, I'ld be kind of surprised
>that anyone had. Was there experience with unmanned missiles or
>projectiles to showed it?

I'm not sure exactly about audible booms, but Barnes Wallis apparently
had to spin his big bombs (which apparently went supersonic) after an
early prototype was knocked off course as it went supersonic. There are
some reports from Tirpitz's crew that they heard 'strange noises' as the
Tallboys rained down.

--
John

Keith Kissane

October 3rd 03, 12:38 PM

In article >,
"John Keeney" > wrote:

> While I suppose they would be predictable, I'ld be kind of surprised
> that anyone had. Was there experience with unmanned missiles or
> projectiles to showed it?

Sure, anyone who's ever worked the target pits on a rifle range heard
the crack of supersonic bullets as they pass overhead.

Gordon

October 3rd 03, 08:05 PM

>There are
>some reports from Tirpitz's crew that they heard 'strange noises' as the
>Tallboys rained down.

The sound of their spincters slamming shut in unison...?

John Keeney

October 4th 03, 05:38 AM

"Keith Kissane" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "John Keeney" > wrote:
>
> > While I suppose they would be predictable, I'ld be kind of surprised
> > that anyone had. Was there experience with unmanned missiles or
> > projectiles to showed it?
>
> Sure, anyone who's ever worked the target pits on a rifle range heard
> the crack of supersonic bullets as they pass overhead.

But how many of them would have reconised it as sonic booms
and how many times do you hear two from a single bullet?

[email protected]

October 4th 03, 01:27 PM

"John Keeney" > wrote:

>
>"Keith Kissane" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "John Keeney" > wrote:
>>
>> > While I suppose they would be predictable, I'ld be kind of surprised
>> > that anyone had. Was there experience with unmanned missiles or
>> > projectiles to showed it?
>>
>> Sure, anyone who's ever worked the target pits on a rifle range heard
>> the crack of supersonic bullets as they pass overhead.
>
>But how many of them would have reconised it as sonic booms
>and how many times do you hear two from a single bullet?
>

Well, I've worked in the pits at rifle ranges and the only odd
thing that I've noticed is that you can tell when 'your' shooter
fires because the report is a bit louder and sharper (even on a
range with lots of targets + it doesn't seem to matter what
distance is in use either).

Another surprising thing is that if you're lying beside a shooter
and using one of those range spotting scopes (25 power?) you can
actually see the bullet going (.303 British cal.). Looks sort of
like a 'shimmery ball' and it's likely the shock wave that you're
seeing.
--

-Gord.

John Mullen

October 4th 03, 01:43 PM

"John Halliwell" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, John Keeney >
> writes
> >Curious, the "booms" (I note the plural form) were anticipated before
> >anyone flew Mach 1+?
> >While I suppose they would be predictable, I'ld be kind of surprised
> >that anyone had. Was there experience with unmanned missiles or
> >projectiles to showed it?
>
> I'm not sure exactly about audible booms, but Barnes Wallis apparently
> had to spin his big bombs (which apparently went supersonic) after an
> early prototype was knocked off course as it went supersonic. There are
> some reports from Tirpitz's crew that they heard 'strange noises' as the
> Tallboys rained down.

Surely the sound of the exploding bombs would arrive first and overwhelm any
sonic boom?

John

Lawrence Dillard

October 4th 03, 03:54 PM

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> "John Halliwell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, John Keeney >
> > writes
> > >Curious, the "booms" (I note the plural form) were anticipated before
> > >anyone flew Mach 1+?
> > >While I suppose they would be predictable, I'ld be kind of surprised
> > >that anyone had. Was there experience with unmanned missiles or
> > >projectiles to showed it?

According to many reports from London and thereabouts during the latterly
months of the WWI Europe, the arrival of the V-2 was announced by its
exploding warhead, followed shortly thereafter by strange noises
(associated, presumably, with the missile's having passed through mach 1).
Assuming these reports were accurate, these would have given rise to an
expectation of an audible "boom" as an object of considerable mass (say, far
more so than a bullet) exceeded mach 1.

I had a friend, now late, who served in N Africa and in Sicily; he related
on a few occasions when I could get him to talk about his experiences that
when the Germans opened fire (but "over") on his formation with their 77mm
and 88mm cannon, he and his squad mates first heard the explosion of the
warhead, then a weird noise which sounded like something moving fast (like a
freight train, only far more frightening) through the air. I suggest this
phenomenon indicates that high-vel artillery rounds would routinely pass
through mach 1, and that their passage could be detected audibly by
survivors, and distinct from the warhead detonation. A 77mm or 88mm round is
far smaller than a V-2, so it seems probable that a V-2 would generate a
much louder "boom", which could be heard over a far larger radius (open to
correction on all of the above, of course).

Snip remainder.

Guy Alcala

October 4th 03, 09:54 PM

Lawrence Dillard wrote:

> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "John Halliwell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, John Keeney >
> > > writes
> > > >Curious, the "booms" (I note the plural form) were anticipated before
> > > >anyone flew Mach 1+?
> > > >While I suppose they would be predictable, I'ld be kind of surprised
> > > >that anyone had. Was there experience with unmanned missiles or
> > > >projectiles to showed it?
>
> According to many reports from London and thereabouts during the latterly
> months of the WWI Europe, the arrival of the V-2 was announced by its
> exploding warhead, followed shortly thereafter by strange noises
> (associated, presumably, with the missile's having passed through mach 1).
> Assuming these reports were accurate, these would have given rise to an
> expectation of an audible "boom" as an object of considerable mass (say, far
> more so than a bullet) exceeded mach 1.
>
> I had a friend, now late, who served in N Africa and in Sicily; he related
> on a few occasions when I could get him to talk about his experiences that
> when the Germans opened fire (but "over") on his formation with their 77mm
> and 88mm cannon,

<snip>

I'd sure like to know where the "77mm" stuff started. I've seen this mentioned
in similar accounts, especially in the early war, but the Germans didn't have
'77s'. They used various 75mm guns, mainly in tanks and SPs although there were
some leftover, modernised WW1 75s (7.5cm FK16(n.A); the 7.5cm FK18, developed in
1930-31 and produced up to 1938; and the 7.5cm FK38,144 of which were acquired
from a Brazilian order. These tended to be issued to low-grade, static
formations. There was also a 75mm infantry gun, the 7.5cm le IG18, developed
from 1927 on. Standard light howitzer was the 10.5cm leichte Feld-Haubitze 18
(le FH18), introduced in 1935.

The V-2 was supersonic as it came down, so it would explode first then the sonic
boom would be heard. Whether this was identifiable above the sound of the
warhead explosion itself, I couldn't say. Probably not by the average
bystander.

Guy

John Halliwell

October 4th 03, 10:40 PM

In article >, Guy Alcala
> writes
>The V-2 was supersonic as it came down, so it would explode first then the sonic
>boom would be heard. Whether this was identifiable above the sound of the
>warhead explosion itself, I couldn't say. Probably not by the average
>bystander.

I'd imagine that would be pretty low on their priorities at that moment,
as they say "If you heard the bang you'd survived".

--
John

Keith Willshaw

October 5th 03, 12:59 AM

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
...
> Lawrence Dillard wrote:
>

>
> I'd sure like to know where the "77mm" stuff started. I've seen this
mentioned
> in similar accounts, especially in the early war, but the Germans didn't
have
> '77s'.

Yes they did. They had the FK 96/16 left over from WW1. It was built
in large numbers as a counter to the French 75mm

http://www.landships.freeservers.com/7.7cm_fk16_info.htm

Keith

Guy Alcala

October 5th 03, 01:58 AM

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Lawrence Dillard wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > I'd sure like to know where the "77mm" stuff started. I've seen this
> mentioned
> > in similar accounts, especially in the early war, but the Germans didn't
> have
> > '77s'.
>
> Yes they did. They had the FK 96/16 left over from WW1. It was built
> in large numbers as a counter to the French 75mm
>
> http://www.landships.freeservers.com/7.7cm_fk16_info.htm
>

H'mm. the references I have all list the FK 16 n/A (neuer Art.) used in WW2
as 7.5 cm (75mm), but I suppose this could be one of those situations where
the caliber was changed in name but not in fact. I wonder how many were still
around and in use in WW2. It seems unlikely that any were issued to
front-line divisions, as there seem to have been enough FH 18s (or even
rechambered Russian 76.2mms) for them.

Guy

Mike Marron

October 5th 03, 03:20 AM

So...

Howzabout thru mach one straight up?

Caveat: from brake release (e.g: relying on thrust/weight only)
Who: ??
What: F-15?or -16?
When: Early/mid-70's?

Mike Marron

October 5th 03, 03:26 AM

>So...

>Howzabout thru mach one straight up?

>Caveat: from brake release (e.g: relying on thrust/weight only)
>Who: ??
>What: F-15?or -16?
>When: Early/mid-70's?

Caveat furthur clarification: e.g: no smash

Keith Willshaw

October 5th 03, 11:56 AM

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>

>
> H'mm. the references I have all list the FK 16 n/A (neuer Art.) used in
WW2
> as 7.5 cm (75mm), but I suppose this could be one of those situations
where
> the caliber was changed in name but not in fact. I wonder how many were
still
> around and in use in WW2. It seems unlikely that any were issued to
> front-line divisions, as there seem to have been enough FH 18s (or even
> rechambered Russian 76.2mms) for them.
>
> Guy
>

The caliber of the FK16 was changed in fact, the FK16 n/A was built from
1934 with new barrels to replace the 77mm FK 16's which were left over
from WW1 but in 1939 some 300 examples of the older gun were apparently
still in service being largely phased out by 1942. I'll agree that
few if any front line units would be so equipped and they seem mostly
to have been used for training.

Keith

Keith Willshaw

October 5th 03, 12:08 PM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> So...
>
> Howzabout thru mach one straight up?
>
> Caveat: from brake release (e.g: relying on thrust/weight only)
> Who: ??
> What: F-15?or -16?
> When: Early/mid-70's?

Who: Roland Beamont
What: English Electric Lightning
When:1959/60

The Lightnings initial climb rate was 50,000 ft per minute
which is slightly less than that of the F-15 and better than
the F-16

I recall seeing one do its party trick at RAF Middleton St George
in the 60's , take off on full reheat, unstick and then climb out at
80 degrees going supersonic while still over the field

Impressive as hell and boy was it noisy. Of course you had
to declare a fuel emergency pretty much straight away
but still :)

Keith

Chad Irby

October 5th 03, 04:35 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

> "Mike Marron" > wrote:
> > So...
> >
> > Howzabout thru mach one straight up?
>
> Who: Roland Beamont
> What: English Electric Lightning
> When:1959/60
>
> The Lightnings initial climb rate was 50,000 ft per minute
> which is slightly less than that of the F-15 and better than
> the F-16
>
> I recall seeing one do its party trick at RAF Middleton St George
> in the 60's , take off on full reheat, unstick and then climb out at
> 80 degrees going supersonic while still over the field

Wasn't the Lightning the first plane to do Mach 1 at sea level?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Keith Willshaw

October 5th 03, 05:42 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
> > "Mike Marron" > wrote:
> > > So...
> > >
> > > Howzabout thru mach one straight up?
> >
> > Who: Roland Beamont
> > What: English Electric Lightning
> > When:1959/60
> >
> > The Lightnings initial climb rate was 50,000 ft per minute
> > which is slightly less than that of the F-15 and better than
> > the F-16
> >
> > I recall seeing one do its party trick at RAF Middleton St George
> > in the 60's , take off on full reheat, unstick and then climb out at
> > 80 degrees going supersonic while still over the field
>
> Wasn't the Lightning the first plane to do Mach 1 at sea level?
>

Pass, it was designed as a interceptor to knock down soviet nuclear
bombers, hence the performance, I seem to recall it was less
capable at low level .

Keith

PosterBoy

October 5th 03, 07:59 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Keith Willshaw wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > H'mm. the references I have all list the FK 16 n/A (neuer Art.) used in
> WW2
> > as 7.5 cm (75mm), but I suppose this could be one of those situations
> where
> > the caliber was changed in name but not in fact. I wonder how many were
> still
> > around and in use in WW2. It seems unlikely that any were issued to
> > front-line divisions, as there seem to have been enough FH 18s (or even
> > rechambered Russian 76.2mms) for them.
> >
> > Guy
> >
>
> The caliber of the FK16 was changed in fact, the FK16 n/A was built from
> 1934 with new barrels to replace the 77mm FK 16's which were left over
> from WW1 but in 1939 some 300 examples of the older gun were apparently
> still in service being largely phased out by 1942. I'll agree that
> few if any front line units would be so equipped and they seem mostly
> to have been used for training.
>
> Keith

Robert Nelson of the US 3rd Division wrote that at Anzio (he was there)
they used a captured "German 77" as an anti-tank weapon because they were
more effective than "our 57s."
http://tinyurl.com/pst6

Cheers.

Guy Alcala

October 5th 03, 08:24 PM

PosterBoy wrote:

> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...

<snip>

> > The caliber of the FK16 was changed in fact, the FK16 n/A was built from
> > 1934 with new barrels to replace the 77mm FK 16's which were left over
> > from WW1 but in 1939 some 300 examples of the older gun were apparently
> > still in service being largely phased out by 1942. I'll agree that
> > few if any front line units would be so equipped and they seem mostly
> > to have been used for training.
> >
> > Keith
>
> Robert Nelson of the US 3rd Division wrote that at Anzio (he was there)
> they used a captured "German 77" as an anti-tank weapon because they were
> more effective than "our 57s."
> http://tinyurl.com/pst6

I expect putting it in quotes was the correct thing to do. I imagine this is
one of those cases where everyone calls them "77s" because that's what they've
heard the Germans have (although late war, every german artillery piece tended
to be an "88", at least if you believe the troops).

Guy

Guy Alcala

October 5th 03, 08:26 PM

Keith Willshaw wrote:

<snip>

> The caliber of the FK16 was changed in fact, the FK16 n/A was built from
> 1934 with new barrels to replace the 77mm FK 16's which were left over
> from WW1 but in 1939 some 300 examples of the older gun were apparently
> still in service being largely phased out by 1942. I'll agree that
> few if any front line units would be so equipped and they seem mostly
> to have been used for training.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up.

Guy

Keith Willshaw

October 5th 03, 11:07 PM

"PosterBoy" > wrote in message
news:PSZfb.25968$9l5.7473@pd7tw2no...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Keith Willshaw wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > H'mm. the references I have all list the FK 16 n/A (neuer Art.) used
in
> > WW2
> > > as 7.5 cm (75mm), but I suppose this could be one of those situations
> > where
> > > the caliber was changed in name but not in fact. I wonder how many
were
> > still
> > > around and in use in WW2. It seems unlikely that any were issued to
> > > front-line divisions, as there seem to have been enough FH 18s (or
even
> > > rechambered Russian 76.2mms) for them.
> > >
> > > Guy
> > >
> >
> > The caliber of the FK16 was changed in fact, the FK16 n/A was built from
> > 1934 with new barrels to replace the 77mm FK 16's which were left over
> > from WW1 but in 1939 some 300 examples of the older gun were apparently
> > still in service being largely phased out by 1942. I'll agree that
> > few if any front line units would be so equipped and they seem mostly
> > to have been used for training.
> >
> > Keith
>
> Robert Nelson of the US 3rd Division wrote that at Anzio (he was there)
> they used a captured "German 77" as an anti-tank weapon because they were
> more effective than "our 57s."
> http://tinyurl.com/pst6
>

Which is probably an error, the 77mm FK-16 was an old fashioned
field gun but the Germans did have some excellent 75mm AT guns

Keith

Peter Stickney

October 6th 03, 03:17 AM

In article >,
"Keith Willshaw" > writes:
>
> "Mike Marron" > wrote in message
> ...
>> So...
>>
>> Howzabout thru mach one straight up?
>>
>> Caveat: from brake release (e.g: relying on thrust/weight only)
>> Who: ??
>> What: F-15?or -16?
>> When: Early/mid-70's?
>
> Who: Roland Beamont
> What: English Electric Lightning
> When:1959/60
>
> The Lightnings initial climb rate was 50,000 ft per minute
> which is slightly less than that of the F-15 and better than
> the F-16

I really don't think so. Mach 1 at sea level is 66,800 ft/min, and at
36,000'. it's 58080. The Lightning's best climb speed would be
somewhere in the range of Mach 0.90 - 0.92, (Where the Drag Rise
really gets cooking). At sea level, Mach 0.90 is 60192 '/min.
The Lightning's 50,000'/minute climb rate would indicat an SEA of
0.83G (Thats (Thrust-Drag)/Weight) Which, while not supersonic, is no
slouch whatsoever.

> I recall seeing one do its party trick at RAF Middleton St George
> in the 60's , take off on full reheat, unstick and then climb out at
> 80 degrees going supersonic while still over the field
>
> Impressive as hell and boy was it noisy. Of course you had
> to declare a fuel emergency pretty much straight away
> but still :)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

WaltBJ

October 6th 03, 03:30 AM

The F104A would certainly exceed Mach 1 at zero feet. At Tyndall AFB
in the mid-fifties they did it about every day. All too soon the
authorities clamped down on it. FWIW with the old 3-b engine I've seen
725 on the clock at about 100'AGL.
Wonder what that Port St. Joe shrimp boat crew thought at 0600 when
they got a 'wake-up' call? Honestly, I was just burning out fuel prior
to landing and never saw thenm until too late.
Walt BJ

[email protected]

October 6th 03, 03:25 PM

(WaltBJ) wrote:

>The F104A would certainly exceed Mach 1 at zero feet. At Tyndall AFB
>in the mid-fifties they did it about every day. All too soon the
>authorities clamped down on it. FWIW with the old 3-b engine I've seen
>725 on the clock at about 100'AGL.
>Wonder what that Port St. Joe shrimp boat crew thought at 0600 when
>they got a 'wake-up' call? Honestly, I was just burning out fuel prior
>to landing and never saw thenm until too late.
>Walt BJ

Of course Walt...who wouldn't believe that?...
--

-Gord.

Ed Rasimus

October 6th 03, 06:11 PM

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:25:14 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

(WaltBJ) wrote:
>
>>The F104A would certainly exceed Mach 1 at zero feet. At Tyndall AFB
>>in the mid-fifties they did it about every day. All too soon the
>>authorities clamped down on it. FWIW with the old 3-b engine I've seen
>>725 on the clock at about 100'AGL.
>>Wonder what that Port St. Joe shrimp boat crew thought at 0600 when
>>they got a 'wake-up' call? Honestly, I was just burning out fuel prior
>>to landing and never saw thenm until too late.
>>Walt BJ
>
>Of course Walt...who wouldn't believe that?...

It sounds believable to me. I did the same thing. Always had to burn
out fuel prior to landing. Always tried to do it most efficiently.
Jets burn more fuel at lower altitude, therefore burn down efficiency
improves lower. And, since the "horizon" at 100 feet isn't very far,
you could be upon the boat before you realized. Yeah, sounds right to
me.

Now, let's put to bed this idea of accelerating through the mach
straight up. While modern jets with greater than 1-to-1 T/W ratios can
accelerate through the vertical, I sincerely doubt the mach claim. Too
much is going on with drag curves, deteriorating performance with
altitude, losses in engine efficiency, etc. I think only heavy lift
rockets accelerate through the mach in near vertical, but they
transition out of vertical fairly early in the flight trajectory and
may not be vertical either.

Guy Alcala

October 6th 03, 08:03 PM

Ed Rasimus wrote:

<snip>

> Now, let's put to bed this idea of accelerating through the mach
> straight up. While modern jets with greater than 1-to-1 T/W ratios can
> accelerate through the vertical, I sincerely doubt the mach claim. Too
> much is going on with drag curves, deteriorating performance with
> altitude, losses in engine efficiency, etc. I think only heavy lift
> rockets accelerate through the mach in near vertical, but they
> transition out of vertical fairly early in the flight trajectory and
> may not be vertical either.

Oh, I don't know. While not a stock production a/c, the Streak Eagle was
certainly capable of doing so [From Jeff Ethell's book on the F-15]:

"The 3,000m record flight was piloted by Maj Roger Smith. With a
thrust-to-weight ratio at release of over 1.6 to 1 the 'Streak Eagle' lifted
off the ground after a roll of only 400ft, approximately seven airplane
lengths. Smith quickly raised the landing gear and maintained nearly level
flight while accelerating to approximately Mach 0.6. The aircraft was then
rotated by a 5g pullup to a near vertical climb attitude. The Eagle
accelerated during this climb to Mach 1 and reached the specified 3,000m
altitude in 27.57 seconds. The 6,000m, 9,000m, and 12,000m records, were
set by Maj Willard 'Mac' MacFarlane in one flight of 16 January [1975]. The
profile was similar to the 3,000m flight except that a maximum speed of Mach
0.7 was obtained before the pullup. MacFarlane and his Eagle were at sonic
speed only 23 seconds after brake release."

"The third flight on 16 January was made by Maj Dave Peterson for the
15,000m record. On this and subsequent flights pilots were wearing pressure
suits. Upon liftoff Maj Peterson accelerated about 50ft over the runway to
0.65 Mach and pulled into a 55 degree flight path angle to reach the 15,000m
target altitude (49,212 ft) in 77.05 seconds. This is approximately 10sec
quicker to that altitude than the Saturn V rocket boosted the Apollo
spacecraft on its way to the moon."

"The 20,000m profile with Maj Smith again at the controls consisted of a
giant Immelmann manoeuvre starting at Mach 0.65 on the deck and pulling 2.5g
until the airplane was over the top at 32,000ft and acceperating in the
opposite direction. While passing throuhg 20,000ft the Eagle was vertical
with a 2.5g load factor and a rate of climb faster than the speed of sound.
At Mach 1.5 Smith pulled 4g into a 55 degree climb and held it there to
66,617ft in 122.94 secs elapsed time. The margin over the 'Foxbat' record
was 28%."

"Maj Peterson then took over for the 25,000m record and flew a similar
profile. Maximum speed achieved was Mach 1.8 just prior to the second
pullup. The specified altitude of 82,021ft was achieved in 161.02 sec at a
speed of Mach 0.6. The a/c eased over the top and descended without
incident. This beat the 'Foxbat's' time by 17%."

In 1973 the MiG-25 climbed to 30,000m in 4 min 3.86sec. when Maj Smith made
the flight to break this record, he lifted off the runway at a weight of
32,000lb after 500ft of ground roll, accelerating to Mach 0.65 and then
pulling into a 2.5g Immemann similar to the two previous record profiles.
After rolling 180 deg. at the top of the climb Smith accelerated in a slight
climb to build up total energy. The 'Streak Eagle' passed through Mach 2
approximately 21 miles downrange and two minutes from takeoff. At Mach 2.2
Smith pulled up to [Sic. 'at'] 4g and attained a 55 deg. flight path
whereupon the stick was relaxed to maintain a constant climb attitutde. The
30,000m mark (98,425ft) was achieved in 207.08sec, bettering the 'Foxbat'
time by 36 sec. The a/c maintained a nearly ballistic freefall path as it
went over the top at 102,400ft."

[Later in the book, describing his own flight in a stock F-15B with Lt. Col.
Dick Stamm, CO of the 22nd TFS, 36th TFW, from Alconbury, for an ACM hop
with the 527th; 36th TFW CO Col. Perry Smith was the wingman]:

"When Dick released the brakes and lit the afterburners, I was slammed back
in my seat with a force very similar to launches I had made from an aircraft
carrier catapult. Before I could catch my breath, the F-15 had traveled
900ft and rotated. The nose came up . . . and up . . . and up! From
rotation Dick pulled the nose up into a 90*degree climb a scant few hundred
feet off the runway. And the aircraft was accelerating while going straight
up*."

"I watched the earth recede rapidly -- this must be what a moon shot was
like -- and glanced up at a cloud deck at 15,000ft. We slammed through it
in a flash; no gradual ascent through. By the time I looked back it was far
below."

"Due to airspace and speed restrictions, Dick had to pull the burners back,
but there was no question a clean, lightly fueled Eagle will go supersonic
straight up from a standing start."

*Given that the F-15 seat is reclined at an angle of 13 degrees IIRC, the
a/c probably wasn't straight up as they'd be hanging by their heads if it
was, but at some angle around 77 degrees, unless Ethell was referencing the
HUD climb ladder at the time.

Guy

John Carrier

October 6th 03, 08:19 PM

The 105 and the Vark were reputed to be frightfully fast down low ... 800+
KIAS with ease. Daryl Greenameyer's suped up 104 was doing 812-815 at 70'
AGL (and approximately 5000 MSL) when he did his record attempt. F-14B's
are good for 800+ as well.

I understand that the Streak Eagle (stripped airframe, tweaked engines)
would actually bust mach in the vertical. Hold it down to around 450,
smooth pull to just past vertical and then an unload to maximize
thrust/drag. This would have been the preferred profile for the
intermediate altitudes ... each one was tailored to reflect fuel load,
target altitude, etc.

R / John

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> (WaltBJ) wrote:
>
> >The F104A would certainly exceed Mach 1 at zero feet. At Tyndall AFB
> >in the mid-fifties they did it about every day. All too soon the
> >authorities clamped down on it. FWIW with the old 3-b engine I've seen
> >725 on the clock at about 100'AGL.
> >Wonder what that Port St. Joe shrimp boat crew thought at 0600 when
> >they got a 'wake-up' call? Honestly, I was just burning out fuel prior
> >to landing and never saw thenm until too late.
> >Walt BJ
>
> Of course Walt...who wouldn't believe that?...
> --
>
> -Gord.

Ed Rasimus

October 6th 03, 09:22 PM

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 19:03:36 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Now, let's put to bed this idea of accelerating through the mach
>> straight up. While modern jets with greater than 1-to-1 T/W ratios can
>> accelerate through the vertical, I sincerely doubt the mach claim. Too
>> much is going on with drag curves, deteriorating performance with
>> altitude, losses in engine efficiency, etc. I think only heavy lift
>> rockets accelerate through the mach in near vertical, but they
>> transition out of vertical fairly early in the flight trajectory and
>> may not be vertical either.
>
>Oh, I don't know. While not a stock production a/c, the Streak Eagle was
>certainly capable of doing so [From Jeff Ethell's book on the F-15]:

--rest of very detailed and impressive data snipped, but should be
referred to for context.---

>Guy

All well and good, but the issue is could an airplane accelerate
through the mach vertically. I contend the answer is no. While the
Streak Eagle stuff is arguably the best documented and most
impressive, it involves accelerating transition into the vertical. To
truly be an acceleration through the mach vertically, it would require
establishing the vertical, then choosing max power and performing the
acceleration. IOW, pick a subsonic speed, such as 600 KIAS for the
pullup to vertical, and even allow for throttle modulation to maintain
constant airspeed through the transition to stabilized vertical at 600
KIAS, NOW accelerate from that point through the mach.

I'm still a skeptic.

Guy Alcala

October 7th 03, 07:53 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 19:03:36 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Now, let's put to bed this idea of accelerating through the mach
> >> straight up. While modern jets with greater than 1-to-1 T/W ratios can
> >> accelerate through the vertical, I sincerely doubt the mach claim. Too
> >> much is going on with drag curves, deteriorating performance with
> >> altitude, losses in engine efficiency, etc. I think only heavy lift
> >> rockets accelerate through the mach in near vertical, but they
> >> transition out of vertical fairly early in the flight trajectory and
> >> may not be vertical either.
> >
> >Oh, I don't know. While not a stock production a/c, the Streak Eagle was
> >certainly capable of doing so [From Jeff Ethell's book on the F-15]:
>
> --rest of very detailed and impressive data snipped, but should be
> referred to for context.---
>
> >Guy
>
> All well and good, but the issue is could an airplane accelerate
> through the mach vertically. I contend the answer is no. While the
> Streak Eagle stuff is arguably the best documented and most
> impressive, it involves accelerating transition into the vertical.

> To
> truly be an acceleration through the mach vertically, it would require
> establishing the vertical, then choosing max power and performing the
> acceleration.

Seems to me that's just what happened in these cases:

"Smith quickly raised the landing gear and maintained nearly level
flight while accelerating to approximately Mach 0.6. The aircraft was then
rotated by a 5g pullup to a near vertical climb attitude. The Eagle
accelerated during this climb to Mach 1 and reached the specified 3,000m
altitude in 27.57 seconds. The 6,000m, 9,000m, and 12,000m records, were
set by Maj Willard 'Mac' MacFarlane in one flight of 16 January [1975]. The
profile was similar to the 3,000m flight except that a maximum speed of Mach
0.7 was obtained before the pullup. MacFarlane and his Eagle were at sonic
speed only 23 seconds after brake release."

Now, an aircraft that can pull 5g to (near) vertical and then accelerate to
Mach 1 or better, and do so in 23 seconds from start of takeoff roll,
certainly has more than enough Ps without all that G.

> IOW, pick a subsonic speed, such as 600 KIAS for the
> pullup to vertical, and even allow for throttle modulation to maintain
> constant airspeed through the transition to stabilized vertical at 600
> KIAS, NOW accelerate from that point through the mach.
>
> I'm still a skeptic.

Given that the Streak Eagle went through the mach while vertical at 20,000
feet while pulling 2.5g in an Immelmann that started on the deck at M0.65, I'm
not. You were the one talking about drag curves being a factor; the induced
drag from pulling 2.5 to 5g inot or through the vertical is certainly
significant, and yet the a/c was still accelerating the whole time.

Guy

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

October 7th 03, 07:55 PM

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 06:53:12 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>Given that the Streak Eagle [yadda yadda yadda]

I know it sprang from the original question, but let's face it, Streak
Eagle is just boring, boring, boring. Lots of altitude, lots of
high-level Air Force middle managers yibbling, safety margins that
actually existed, etc, etc.

Real men talk about the _authentic_ triumphs of American aviation
machismo.

Like SAGEBURNER.... Never mind the namby, limp-wristed '70's Air
Force efforts, let's get back to the heady days of the Cold War,
Marine Corps pilots with something to prove, and idiotic record
attempts being made with the new toys.

Gavin Bailey

--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

Jim Thomas

October 8th 03, 02:42 AM

Actually, the Streak Eagle didn't ever fly vertically for more than a
transition. The profile, as I remember (the x's are numbers I don't
remember), was to takeoff, do an Immelman at IAS x, accelerate in level
flight to Mach x, then pull to a zoom at x degrees (or maybe at an angle
attack). I never flew this profile, but was in the F-15 Test Force when
Roger Smith did. My memory is probably faulty, but I think that my
description is fairly accurate.

Could it have accelerated through Mach 1 in vertical flight? We'll never
know. It never tried to.

Jim Thomas

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 19:03:36 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Now, let's put to bed this idea of accelerating through the mach
>>>straight up. While modern jets with greater than 1-to-1 T/W ratios can
>>>accelerate through the vertical, I sincerely doubt the mach claim. Too
>>>much is going on with drag curves, deteriorating performance with
>>>altitude, losses in engine efficiency, etc. I think only heavy lift
>>>rockets accelerate through the mach in near vertical, but they
>>>transition out of vertical fairly early in the flight trajectory and
>>>may not be vertical either.
>>
>>Oh, I don't know. While not a stock production a/c, the Streak Eagle was
>>certainly capable of doing so [From Jeff Ethell's book on the F-15]:
>
>
> --rest of very detailed and impressive data snipped, but should be
> referred to for context.---
>
>
>>Guy
>
>
>
> All well and good, but the issue is could an airplane accelerate
> through the mach vertically. I contend the answer is no. While the
> Streak Eagle stuff is arguably the best documented and most
> impressive, it involves accelerating transition into the vertical. To
> truly be an acceleration through the mach vertically, it would require
> establishing the vertical, then choosing max power and performing the
> acceleration. IOW, pick a subsonic speed, such as 600 KIAS for the
> pullup to vertical, and even allow for throttle modulation to maintain
> constant airspeed through the transition to stabilized vertical at 600
> KIAS, NOW accelerate from that point through the mach.
>
> I'm still a skeptic.
>
>

Jim Thomas

October 8th 03, 02:51 AM

I hadn't read this post at my last reply. This description sounds
accurate for the Streak Eagle flights. I'm still not sure that the
aircraft accelerated through Mach 1 in vertical flight; it sure could
have, if it did so during an Immelman!

Jim Thomas

Guy Alcala wrote:

> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Now, let's put to bed this idea of accelerating through the mach
>>straight up. While modern jets with greater than 1-to-1 T/W ratios can
>>accelerate through the vertical, I sincerely doubt the mach claim. Too
>>much is going on with drag curves, deteriorating performance with
>>altitude, losses in engine efficiency, etc. I think only heavy lift
>>rockets accelerate through the mach in near vertical, but they
>>transition out of vertical fairly early in the flight trajectory and
>>may not be vertical either.
>
>
> Oh, I don't know. While not a stock production a/c, the Streak Eagle was
> certainly capable of doing so [From Jeff Ethell's book on the F-15]:
>
> "The 3,000m record flight was piloted by Maj Roger Smith. With a
> thrust-to-weight ratio at release of over 1.6 to 1 the 'Streak Eagle' lifted
> off the ground after a roll of only 400ft, approximately seven airplane
> lengths. Smith quickly raised the landing gear and maintained nearly level
> flight while accelerating to approximately Mach 0.6. The aircraft was then
> rotated by a 5g pullup to a near vertical climb attitude. The Eagle
> accelerated during this climb to Mach 1 and reached the specified 3,000m
> altitude in 27.57 seconds. The 6,000m, 9,000m, and 12,000m records, were
> set by Maj Willard 'Mac' MacFarlane in one flight of 16 January [1975]. The
> profile was similar to the 3,000m flight except that a maximum speed of Mach
> 0.7 was obtained before the pullup. MacFarlane and his Eagle were at sonic
> speed only 23 seconds after brake release."
>
> "The third flight on 16 January was made by Maj Dave Peterson for the
> 15,000m record. On this and subsequent flights pilots were wearing pressure
> suits. Upon liftoff Maj Peterson accelerated about 50ft over the runway to
> 0.65 Mach and pulled into a 55 degree flight path angle to reach the 15,000m
> target altitude (49,212 ft) in 77.05 seconds. This is approximately 10sec
> quicker to that altitude than the Saturn V rocket boosted the Apollo
> spacecraft on its way to the moon."
>
> "The 20,000m profile with Maj Smith again at the controls consisted of a
> giant Immelmann manoeuvre starting at Mach 0.65 on the deck and pulling 2.5g
> until the airplane was over the top at 32,000ft and acceperating in the
> opposite direction. While passing throuhg 20,000ft the Eagle was vertical
> with a 2.5g load factor and a rate of climb faster than the speed of sound.
> At Mach 1.5 Smith pulled 4g into a 55 degree climb and held it there to
> 66,617ft in 122.94 secs elapsed time. The margin over the 'Foxbat' record
> was 28%."
>
> "Maj Peterson then took over for the 25,000m record and flew a similar
> profile. Maximum speed achieved was Mach 1.8 just prior to the second
> pullup. The specified altitude of 82,021ft was achieved in 161.02 sec at a
> speed of Mach 0.6. The a/c eased over the top and descended without
> incident. This beat the 'Foxbat's' time by 17%."
>
> In 1973 the MiG-25 climbed to 30,000m in 4 min 3.86sec. when Maj Smith made
> the flight to break this record, he lifted off the runway at a weight of
> 32,000lb after 500ft of ground roll, accelerating to Mach 0.65 and then
> pulling into a 2.5g Immemann similar to the two previous record profiles.
> After rolling 180 deg. at the top of the climb Smith accelerated in a slight
> climb to build up total energy. The 'Streak Eagle' passed through Mach 2
> approximately 21 miles downrange and two minutes from takeoff. At Mach 2.2
> Smith pulled up to [Sic. 'at'] 4g and attained a 55 deg. flight path
> whereupon the stick was relaxed to maintain a constant climb attitutde. The
> 30,000m mark (98,425ft) was achieved in 207.08sec, bettering the 'Foxbat'
> time by 36 sec. The a/c maintained a nearly ballistic freefall path as it
> went over the top at 102,400ft."
>
> [Later in the book, describing his own flight in a stock F-15B with Lt. Col.
> Dick Stamm, CO of the 22nd TFS, 36th TFW, from Alconbury, for an ACM hop
> with the 527th; 36th TFW CO Col. Perry Smith was the wingman]:
>
> "When Dick released the brakes and lit the afterburners, I was slammed back
> in my seat with a force very similar to launches I had made from an aircraft
> carrier catapult. Before I could catch my breath, the F-15 had traveled
> 900ft and rotated. The nose came up . . . and up . . . and up! From
> rotation Dick pulled the nose up into a 90*degree climb a scant few hundred
> feet off the runway. And the aircraft was accelerating while going straight
> up*."
>
> "I watched the earth recede rapidly -- this must be what a moon shot was
> like -- and glanced up at a cloud deck at 15,000ft. We slammed through it
> in a flash; no gradual ascent through. By the time I looked back it was far
> below."
>
> "Due to airspace and speed restrictions, Dick had to pull the burners back,
> but there was no question a clean, lightly fueled Eagle will go supersonic
> straight up from a standing start."
>
> *Given that the F-15 seat is reclined at an angle of 13 degrees IIRC, the
> a/c probably wasn't straight up as they'd be hanging by their heads if it
> was, but at some angle around 77 degrees, unless Ethell was referencing the
> HUD climb ladder at the time.
>
> Guy
>

Ed Rasimus

October 8th 03, 03:48 PM

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 01:51:35 GMT, Jim Thomas >
wrote:

>I hadn't read this post at my last reply. This description sounds
>accurate for the Streak Eagle flights. I'm still not sure that the
>aircraft accelerated through Mach 1 in vertical flight; it sure could
>have, if it did so during an Immelman!
>
>Jim Thomas
>
>Guy Alcala wrote:
>
>> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>>>Now, let's put to bed this idea of accelerating through the mach
>>>straight up. While modern jets with greater than 1-to-1 T/W ratios can
>>>accelerate through the vertical, I sincerely doubt the mach claim. Too
>>>much is going on with drag curves, deteriorating performance with
>>>altitude, losses in engine efficiency, etc. I think only heavy lift
>>>rockets accelerate through the mach in near vertical, but they
>>>transition out of vertical fairly early in the flight trajectory and
>>>may not be vertical either.
>>
>>
>> Oh, I don't know. While not a stock production a/c, the Streak Eagle was
>> certainly capable of doing so [From Jeff Ethell's book on the F-15]:
>>
>> "The 3,000m record flight was piloted by Maj Roger Smith. With a
>> thrust-to-weight ratio at release of over 1.6 to 1 the 'Streak Eagle' lifted
>> off the ground after a roll of only 400ft, approximately seven airplane
>> lengths. Smith quickly raised the landing gear and maintained nearly level
>> flight while accelerating to approximately Mach 0.6. The aircraft was then
>> rotated by a 5g pullup to a near vertical climb attitude. The Eagle
>> accelerated during this climb to Mach 1 and reached the specified 3,000m
>> altitude in 27.57 seconds.
>> Guy
>>
---remainder of detail on a great aeronautical achievement snipped--

First, let me note that I'm a political scientist by education and a
military aviator by choice. I'm not an engineer or mathematician (but
I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.....)

As I recall, the first integral of velocity is acceleration. The
second integral would be rate of change of acceleration. Therefore
(without doing the math), if one were accelerating horizontally at a
high rate and then transitioned into the vertical, the addition of the
gravity vector to drag--i.e. directly in opposition to thrust, would
result in a rapid decay of the second integral--positive rate of
change of acceleration. Acceleration would slow down, although still
be increasing speed; merely at a slower rate of increase. Therefore
you might pass through the Mach while in the vertical. Note also that
the relationship between the Mach and IAS is shifting rapidly as
altitude increases. Mach 1 becomes a lower and lower IAS.

The "fastest way to Mach II" used to be the Rutowski profile. Takeoff
and accelerate to .9 mach on the deck. Hold .9 mach and transition to
climb until .9 mach intersects some airspeed (I think it was about 400
or 450 kts, but am not sure--it was a long time ago.) Then hump over
to allow the aircraft to accelerate to 1.2 M. This usually took place
at around FL 210 and resulted in a slight descent to about FL 180. At
1.2 M, establish that IAS and maintain the climb on IAS until reaching
Mach 2--usually around FL 450. The amazing thing was the sensation of
"the faster you go, the faster you go faster!" The acceleration on
takeoff from about 400 kts IAS until reaching .9 near 600 kts was a
kick!

My point remains. If you established vertical at a given subsonic IAS,
then selected reheat, I continue to doubt that the aircraft could
accelerate through the mach. It's an entirely different dynamic
situation than the Streak Eagle profile.

Tarver Engineering

October 8th 03, 04:00 PM

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 01:51:35 GMT, Jim Thomas >
> wrote:
>
> >I hadn't read this post at my last reply. This description sounds
> >accurate for the Streak Eagle flights. I'm still not sure that the
> >aircraft accelerated through Mach 1 in vertical flight; it sure could
> >have, if it did so during an Immelman!
> >
> >Jim Thomas
> >
> >Guy Alcala wrote:
> >
> >> Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >>
> >>>Now, let's put to bed this idea of accelerating through the mach
> >>>straight up. While modern jets with greater than 1-to-1 T/W ratios can
> >>>accelerate through the vertical, I sincerely doubt the mach claim. Too
> >>>much is going on with drag curves, deteriorating performance with
> >>>altitude, losses in engine efficiency, etc. I think only heavy lift
> >>>rockets accelerate through the mach in near vertical, but they
> >>>transition out of vertical fairly early in the flight trajectory and
> >>>may not be vertical either.
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh, I don't know. While not a stock production a/c, the Streak Eagle
was
> >> certainly capable of doing so [From Jeff Ethell's book on the F-15]:
> >>
> >> "The 3,000m record flight was piloted by Maj Roger Smith. With a
> >> thrust-to-weight ratio at release of over 1.6 to 1 the 'Streak Eagle'
lifted
> >> off the ground after a roll of only 400ft, approximately seven airplane
> >> lengths. Smith quickly raised the landing gear and maintained nearly
level
> >> flight while accelerating to approximately Mach 0.6. The aircraft was
then
> >> rotated by a 5g pullup to a near vertical climb attitude. The Eagle
> >> accelerated during this climb to Mach 1 and reached the specified
3,000m
> >> altitude in 27.57 seconds.
> >> Guy
> >>
> ---remainder of detail on a great aeronautical achievement snipped--
>
> First, let me note that I'm a political scientist by education and a
> military aviator by choice. I'm not an engineer or mathematician (but
> I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.....)
>
> As I recall, the first integral of velocity is acceleration.

Nope.

Nele_VII

October 8th 03, 04:21 PM

P-42 (record-breaking SU-27) could accelerate through vertical, 90 degrees
flight.

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

Jim Thomas wrote in message ...
>I hadn't read this post at my last reply. This description sounds
>accurate for the Streak Eagle flights. I'm still not sure that the
>aircraft accelerated through Mach 1 in vertical flight; it sure could
>have, if it did so during an Immelman!
>
>Jim Thomas

Ed Rasimus

October 8th 03, 05:05 PM

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 08:00:01 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>> As I recall, the first integral of velocity is acceleration.
>
>Nope.
>

Ahh, now I see. Thanks for that typically helpful addition to the
thread. Enlightenment can come in such small and pithy comments.

Harry Andreas

October 8th 03, 05:38 PM

> > [Later in the book, describing his own flight in a stock F-15B with Lt. Col.
> > Dick Stamm, CO of the 22nd TFS, 36th TFW, from Alconbury, for an ACM hop
> > with the 527th; 36th TFW CO Col. Perry Smith was the wingman]:
> >
> > "When Dick released the brakes and lit the afterburners, I was slammed back
> > in my seat with a force very similar to launches I had made from an aircraft
> > carrier catapult. Before I could catch my breath, the F-15 had traveled
> > 900ft and rotated. The nose came up . . . and up . . . and up! From
> > rotation Dick pulled the nose up into a 90*degree climb a scant few hundred
> > feet off the runway. And the aircraft was accelerating while going straight
> > up*."
> >
> > "I watched the earth recede rapidly -- this must be what a moon shot was
> > like -- and glanced up at a cloud deck at 15,000ft. We slammed through it
> > in a flash; no gradual ascent through. By the time I looked back it was far
> > below."
> >
> > "Due to airspace and speed restrictions, Dick had to pull the burners back,
> > but there was no question a clean, lightly fueled Eagle will go supersonic
> > straight up from a standing start."

I watched F-15s do this at St Louis airport back in the 80's.
What did they call it? A "Trojan takeoff"?

The Macair guy claimed they used this profile because it kept the aircraft
noise over the airport and didn't disturb the neighbors as much.
He kept a straight face while he said it, too.
I admired him for that.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Tarver Engineering

October 8th 03, 06:45 PM

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 08:00:01 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> >> As I recall, the first integral of velocity is acceleration.
> >
> >Nope.
> >
>
> Ahh, now I see. Thanks for that typically helpful addition to the
> thread. Enlightenment can come in such small and pithy comments.

Integral A dt = V0 + At =V

John Mullen

October 8th 03, 06:58 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 08:00:01 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> > >> As I recall, the first integral of velocity is acceleration.
> > >
> > >Nope.
> > >
> >
> > Ahh, now I see. Thanks for that typically helpful addition to the
> > thread. Enlightenment can come in such small and pithy comments.

I hate to say it Ed but for once Tarver is right. The first *differential*
of velocity is acceleration. The first integral would be distance covered. I
understood perfectly what you meant though and envy you that experience.

> Integral A dt = V0 + At =V
>

I've no idea what he means by this though!

John

Tarver Engineering

October 8th 03, 07:03 PM

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 08:00:01 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> > > >> As I recall, the first integral of velocity is acceleration.
> > > >
> > > >Nope.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ahh, now I see. Thanks for that typically helpful addition to the
> > > thread. Enlightenment can come in such small and pithy comments.
>
> I hate to say it Ed but for once Tarver is right. The first *differential*
> of velocity is acceleration. The first integral would be distance covered.
I
> understood perfectly what you meant though and envy you that experience.
>
> > Integral A dt = V0 + At =V
> >
>
> I've no idea what he means by this though!

It is the integral form of one of Newton's laws.

John Carrier

October 8th 03, 07:14 PM

> Actually, the Streak Eagle didn't ever fly vertically for more than a
> transition. The profile, as I remember (the x's are numbers I don't
> remember), was to takeoff, do an Immelman at IAS x, accelerate in level
> flight to Mach x, then pull to a zoom at x degrees (or maybe at an angle
> attack).

This was indeed the profile for the higher records: 25K and 30K (35K too?)
meters. IIRC, the intermediates (around 12-15K) were accomplished more or
less straight up.

Each profile (I think they started at 3K meters ... roughly 10,000 feet)
was approached as a separate problem. Fuel required was calculated and the
aircraft was held in position in full A/B with an pyro-release fitting. Hit
the magic fuel number and away you go. Airborne and clean up with level
accel to optimum airspeed and then do a programmed pull up to optimum climb
angle.

The higher altitudes required a target mach number before pulling up for the
zoom to altitude (approximately 60 degrees nose up_). A/B's blow out in the
65K range. Engine shut-down is a function of minimum fuel flow (The J-79
overtemped in the low 70's ... don't have a clue for the F-101) but done
shortly thereafter. It's dark up there.

R / John

Ed Rasimus

October 8th 03, 07:23 PM

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:58:04 +0100, "John Mullen" > wrote:

>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> > >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
>> > >> As I recall, the first integral of velocity is acceleration.
>> > >
>> > >Nope.
>> > >
>I hate to say it Ed but for once Tarver is right. The first *differential*
>of velocity is acceleration. The first integral would be distance covered. I
>understood perfectly what you meant though and envy you that experience.

Well, the disclaimer at the beginning of my post should cover me. I
knew that the relationship between velocity, acceleration and rate of
change of acceleration went one way or the other. It was either the
first and second integral or the first and second differential. It was
differential equations at the end of my fourth semester as a chemistry
major, coupled with semi-micro qualitative analysis and physical
chemistry, that led me to see the futility of ever succeeding with the
pocket protector crowd.

I changed major to political science with the singular goal of gaining
a degree in "anything" so that I could get on with entering the AF and
flying jets.

If we change the "integral" to "differential" I'm sure that John will
recognize and acknowledge my point about aircraft accelerating through
the mach vertically.

>

Tarver Engineering

October 8th 03, 07:39 PM

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 18:58:04 +0100, "John Mullen" > wrote:
>
> >"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> > >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> >> > >> As I recall, the first integral of velocity is acceleration.
> >> > >
> >> > >Nope.
> >> > >
> >I hate to say it Ed but for once Tarver is right. The first
*differential*
> >of velocity is acceleration. The first integral would be distance
covered. I
> >understood perfectly what you meant though and envy you that experience.
>
> Well, the disclaimer at the beginning of my post should cover me. I
> knew that the relationship between velocity, acceleration and rate of
> change of acceleration went one way or the other.

It goes both ways:

Integral a dt = V + V0
dV/dt = a

But of course, Ed knows his airplane operating.

WaltBJ

October 8th 03, 08:58 PM

SNIP:
> > >> Ed Rasimus wrote:
> > >>>Now, let's put to bed this idea of accelerating through the mach
> > >>>straight up.
A couple reminders:
1) with a thrust to weight atio of 1.6:1 the Streak Eagle is
distinctly higher powered than anything any of us flew in the service.
2) It's shedding weight in full afterburner during the takeoff and
climb. I don't know what the fuel consumption of an F15 full-out is
but it's certainly over a ton a minute, so the T/W is increasing.
3) The only comparision I have experience with is the F104B on an AB
go-around at the end of a mission but with 1500 pounds of fuel reaming
a B model with 2 AIM9s weight about 16300. With 18000 pounds of thrust
it was very sprightly indeed. Thing was, that 18000 pounds of thrust
is measured in static condions. I have seen the fuel flow gauge on
both the F104s and the F4s rise from about 8500pph (per engine) on
pre-takeoff run up to 12000pph at 600 KIAS on level acceleration after
takeoff, obviously due to ram effect. Since jet thrust has a linear
relation of fuel burn - the thrust to weight ratio in flight cannot be
determined from thrust developed while sitting still on the ground.
Note that I do not know what is happening in the afterburner; the only
correlation I ever heard of was the AB fuel flow was about 4 times
that of the fuel flow to the engine itself. Also, the J79 manual
figure in AB for takeoff was 750 pounds per minute - per engine. FWIW
the engine fuel flow is determined by the necessity of keeping the
total air flow/fuel flow ratio right around 55 to 1. ( Lots more air
than stoichiometric needs to keep the engine from melting.)
4) So what I'm saying is that there is no doubt in my mind that a
lightened F15 with a minimum mission required fuel load could and did
exceed Mach 1 climbing vertically.
5) BTW with Jeff Ethell's flying experience and the highly visible
attitude direction indicator in an F15 why question his statement that
they were indeed vertical? Checking a vertical climb on the gyro is no
big deal - and one also looks out at the horizon.

Walt BJ

B2431

October 8th 03, 09:14 PM

>
>I hate to say it Ed but for once Tarver is right. The first *differential*
>of velocity is acceleration. The first integral would be distance covered. I
>understood perfectly what you meant though and envy you that experience.
>
>> Integral A dt = V0 + At =V
>>
>
>I've no idea what he means by this though!
>
>John
>
It's basic calculus. Try this one in English units: if you drop an object the
function for determining how far it has fallen is X=16T^2, where X is the
distance travelled in feet and T is the time in seconds. The first derivative
is V = 32T where V is instantaneous velocity expressed in feet per second. The
first derivative of V, and the second of X, is A = 32 feet/second/second which
is the acceleration due to gravity. Integration is the reverse process. This
function doesn't take into account drag, but if you drop a bowling ball from
the top of a 10 story building drag is negligible.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Ken Duffey

October 8th 03, 09:56 PM

WaltBJ wrote:

> SNIP:
> > > >> Ed Rasimus wrote:
> > > >>>Now, let's put to bed this idea of accelerating through the mach
> > > >>>straight up.
> A couple reminders:
> 1) with a thrust to weight atio of 1.6:1 the Streak Eagle is
> distinctly higher powered than anything any of us flew in the service.
> 2) It's shedding weight in full afterburner during the takeoff and
> climb. I don't know what the fuel consumption of an F15 full-out is
> but it's certainly over a ton a minute, so the T/W is increasing.
> 3) The only comparision I have experience with is the F104B on an AB
> go-around at the end of a mission but with 1500 pounds of fuel reaming
> a B model with 2 AIM9s weight about 16300. With 18000 pounds of thrust
> it was very sprightly indeed. Thing was, that 18000 pounds of thrust
> is measured in static condions. I have seen the fuel flow gauge on
> both the F104s and the F4s rise from about 8500pph (per engine) on
> pre-takeoff run up to 12000pph at 600 KIAS on level acceleration after
> takeoff, obviously due to ram effect. Since jet thrust has a linear
> relation of fuel burn - the thrust to weight ratio in flight cannot be
> determined from thrust developed while sitting still on the ground.
> Note that I do not know what is happening in the afterburner; the only
> correlation I ever heard of was the AB fuel flow was about 4 times
> that of the fuel flow to the engine itself. Also, the J79 manual
> figure in AB for takeoff was 750 pounds per minute - per engine. FWIW
> the engine fuel flow is determined by the necessity of keeping the
> total air flow/fuel flow ratio right around 55 to 1. ( Lots more air
> than stoichiometric needs to keep the engine from melting.)
> 4) So what I'm saying is that there is no doubt in my mind that a
> lightened F15 with a minimum mission required fuel load could and did
> exceed Mach 1 climbing vertically.
> 5) BTW with Jeff Ethell's flying experience and the highly visible
> attitude direction indicator in an F15 why question his statement that
> they were indeed vertical? Checking a vertical climb on the gyro is no
> big deal - and one also looks out at the horizon.
>
> Walt BJ

I can't compete with all you knowledgeable guys with the maths or actual
flying experince, but I thought I'd just contribute this..........

The Sukhoi P-42 - a modified Su-27 Flanker which took all the time-to-climb
records from the Streak Eagle - was similarly modified with tweaked engines
and lightened airframe.

It had thrust-to-weight ratio was almost 2:1 at takeoff.

The following is an extract from Andrei Fomin's book on the Su-27 :-

"The fighters engines were augmented, with the thrust of each engine
increasing by more than 1,000 kgf (in FAI reports a thrust of 2x13,600 kgf
was mentioned and the engines were presented under the designation of
R-32). The steps taken gave the P-42 a unique thrust-to-weight ratio
equalling almost 2 at takeoff. As a result, the P-42 was able to gather
speed and break through the sonic barrier when climbing".

It doesn't actually say 'climbing vertically' - but it does say supersonic
whilst climbing.

My page on the P-42 is at :- http://www.duffeyk.fsnet.co.uk/p-42.htm and
the list of some of the P-42's 27 world records is at :-
http://www.duffeyk.fsnet.co.uk/p42_records.htm

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

Jim Thomas

October 8th 03, 09:58 PM

What the McAir guy said was true. The profile was a published one that
kept FCF and acceptance flights out of the airport traffic pattern. They
weren't supersonic, however.

Jim Thomas

Harry Andreas wrote:

>>
> I watched F-15s do this at St Louis airport back in the 80's.
> What did they call it? A "Trojan takeoff"?
>
> The Macair guy claimed they used this profile because it kept the aircraft
> noise over the airport and didn't disturb the neighbors as much.
> He kept a straight face while he said it, too.
> I admired him for that.
>

John Halliwell

October 8th 03, 10:05 PM

In article >, B2431
> writes
>It's basic calculus.

I'm not too sure if 'basic' and 'calculus' sit too well together :)

> Try this one in English units: if you drop an object the
>function for determining how far it has fallen is X=16T^2, where X is the
>distance travelled in feet and T is the time in seconds. The first derivative
>is V = 32T where V is instantaneous velocity expressed in feet per second. The
>first derivative of V, and the second of X, is A = 32 feet/second/second which
>is the acceleration due to gravity. Integration is the reverse process. This
>function doesn't take into account drag, but if you drop a bowling ball from
>the top of a 10 story building drag is negligible.

The best bit I liked was deriving the equations of motion from the three
basic dimensions 'L', 'M' & 'T' (distance, mass, time).

--
John

Chad Irby

October 8th 03, 10:24 PM

(Harry Andreas) wrote:

> The Macair guy claimed they used this profile because it kept the aircraft
> noise over the airport and didn't disturb the neighbors as much.
> He kept a straight face while he said it, too.
> I admired him for that.

Once, at Geoge AFB, we had a couple of F-15s refueling while we were
prepping a cross-country flight of F-4Es. The F-15s did a "haul ass ten
feet off of the runway, pull the gear, go straight up while rolling
until out of sight" moves.

The four F-4Es... sorta slouched off of the ground and headed the other
way.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Ed Rasimus

October 8th 03, 10:53 PM

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 21:56:10 +0100, Ken Duffey
> wrote:

> As a result, the P-42 was able to gather
>speed and break through the sonic barrier when climbing".
>
>It doesn't actually say 'climbing vertically' - but it does say supersonic
>whilst climbing.
>

Which returns (for the very last time, I promise) to my contention.
I've never doubted the ability of the F-15, nor the P-42, nor for that
matter, the F-4E or even the lowly T-38 to "break through the sonic
barrier when climbing".

My argument was purely rhetorical and dealing with the symantics of
accelerating through the mach when vertical. There's a huge difference
between stabilized vertical flight sub-sonic, then selecting full
thrust and achieving supersonic with pure vertical acceleration.

I postulate once more: pick a subsonic speed--I like around 500 kts
indicated. Pull up to vertical--throttle modulation to maintain
airspeed is acceptable. When established vertical, still subsonic,
stabilize pitch (this will require zero G) and accelerate through the
mach.

Factors involved:

Making the initial pitch up at such an indicated airspeed without
climbing through an altitude at which the mach is passed prior to
achieving vertical.

Decrease in thrust as altitude increases. Remember that vaunted
>1-to-1 T/W is measured at sea level.

Available altitude before running into service ceiling

Available fuel--while lighter means easier acceleration, fuel
consumption also means running out of fuel.

Temp/altitude changes in relationship of mach to indicated to true.

The simple problem of reliable fuel flow in the unloaded G state
required to maintain vertical.

There's probably more at work, but the problem is complex and neither
the Streak Eagle experience or the Soviet record meet the discussion
criteria.

End of diatribe.

Guy Alcala

October 8th 03, 10:53 PM