Me-262, NOT Bell X-1 Broke SB First

"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?

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

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

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.

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...?

"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?

"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 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

"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.

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