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

In article . net,
"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.

No American prop plane ever exceeded the speed of sound. No German jet or
rocket fighter ever exceeded the speed of sound. If Yeager was not the
first to exceed the speed of sound, the only other possibility is that
George Welch in the XP-86 was the first.

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

But since none of these were subjected to any sort of external
measurement (the Me-262 in the original post certainly wasn't), it's not
possible to tell for sure.

Which is why the X-1 was the first.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"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)

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

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

"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)

"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?

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.

"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?

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

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...?