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

http://mach1.luftarchiv.de/weisse_9.htm

"White 9" deserves the credit, not "Glamorous Glennis"!

Rob

(robert arndt) wrote:

http://mach1.luftarchiv.de/weisse_9.htm

"White 9" deserves the credit, not "Glamorous Glennis"!

When you break a speed record, one of the requirements is that you do it
in *level flight*.

Putting a plane into a 40 degree dive kinda takes it out of the running,
especially since some American *prop* planes had probably done it before
1945. From reports, P-38 Lightnings had entered compressibility as far
back as 1941, and some had actually come out of it (not the safest
flight regime, back then).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"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.



Putting a plane into a 40 degree dive kinda takes it out of the running,
especially since some American *prop* planes had probably done it before
1945. From reports, P-38 Lightnings had entered compressibility as far
back as 1941, and some had actually come out of it (not the safest
flight regime, back then).


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.

In article , Chad Irby
writes
When you break a speed record, one of the requirements is that you do it
in *level flight*.

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. Note the X-1 never held an official air speed record.

Putting a plane into a 40 degree dive kinda takes it out of the running,
especially since some American *prop* planes had probably done it before
1945. From reports, P-38 Lightnings had entered compressibility as far
back as 1941, and some had actually come out of it (not the safest
flight regime, back then).

Spitfires were dived to M.93 after WWII, and were better suited to
speeds in this range than most jets before the Sabre turned up.

--
John

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.

robert arndt wrote in message
. ..
http://mach1.luftarchiv.de/weisse_9.htm

"White 9" deserves the credit, not "Glamorous Glennis"!

Rob

In how many pieces did it break the SB?

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

John Halliwell wrote:

In article , Chad Irby
writes
When you break a speed record, one of the requirements is that you do it
in *level flight*.

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. Note the X-1 never held an official air speed record.

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.

Spitfires were dived to M.93 after WWII, and were better suited to
speeds in this range than most jets before the Sabre turned up.

Which goes to show: make something slick enough and drop it from high
enough, and you can go fast as hell.

--
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)

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

"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.