![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Chad Irby" wrote in message m... Some reports suggest it did. Examined and proven false years ago. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:13:01 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
In article . net, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote in message . .. Putting a plane into a 40 degree dive doesn't count, or the P-38 would have made this "record" in 1941. Supersonic flight in a dive would have counted, but no P-38 ever exceeded the speed of sound in any attitude. Some reports suggest it did. It had the streamlining and terminal velocity characteristics to manage it, if the pilot could deal with the compressibility problems. But the claims are, to say the least, iffy. Impossible. Since the prop goes supersonic long before the aircraft, the pressure rise won't allow it. At high sub-sonic speeds propellers make remarkable air brakes. If any WWII fighter was least likely to get near Mach 1, it was the P-38 with its 0.68 critical Mach. My regards, Widewing (C.C. Jordan) http://www.worldwar2aviation.com http://www.netaces.org http://www.hitechcreations.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
(Corey C. Jordan) wrote:
If any WWII fighter was least likely to get near Mach 1, it was the P-38 with its 0.68 critical Mach. And as any truthful RAF Sea Vixen driver would attest, not to mention the P-38's relatively dirty twin boom design. -Mike Marron |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I suspect that a problem would have been the accuracy of the
pitot-static system to indicate supersonic flight. I don't think that any of the prop planes mentioned had a flight-test-type boom stuck out ahead of the fuselage, prop, wings, etc., not to mention any position error corrections for transonic flight. In other words, these aircraft may have gone supersonic, but there was no way to know. Jim Thomas Chad Irby wrote: In article . net, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote in message m... Putting a plane into a 40 degree dive doesn't count, or the P-38 would have made this "record" in 1941. Supersonic flight in a dive would have counted, but no P-38 ever exceeded the speed of sound in any attitude. Some reports suggest it did. It had the streamlining and terminal velocity characteristics to manage it, if the pilot could deal with the compressibility problems. But the claims are, to say the least, iffy. They have about the same provenence as the Me-262 claim in the first post, though, so they don't count. And if the Me-262 counts, they should too. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() I suspect that a problem would have been the accuracy of the pitot-static system to indicate supersonic flight. The only indicator of a supersonic flight that Mutke had was a tingling in his balls. No person on the ground reported a sonic boom, no aircraft was logged as damaged during an inflight event by his unit on the date Mutke claims, etc., etc., etc. I have no doubt he went fast that day, but supersonic?? NO. I don't think that any of the prop planes mentioned had a flight-test-type boom stuck out ahead of the fuselage, prop, wings, etc., not to mention any position error corrections for transonic flight. Same with Mutke's vanilla Me 262 fighter - no onboard instrumentation that could have determined if transonic flight were actually occurring. In other words, these aircraft may have gone supersonic, but there was no way to know. In the case of the 262, it was somewhat easier to tell, since its intakes and rounded nose preclude any such supersonic event. v/r Gordon ====(A+C==== USN SAR Aircrew "Got anything on your radar, SENSO?" "Nothing but my forehead, sir." |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Someday the real history of Mach flight will be revealed as well as
the German disc aircraft programs of the Third Reich I ask again, what disc aircraft program? What are your sources? If you are thinking of the "Flying Pankcake" that was a Vought aircraft built ins the U.S. and actually flew. Take a look at the website you cited and you will also find denials of the existance of gas chambers, murder of Jews..etc which makes tens of thousands of Germans, Soviets, French, U.S., British etc military and civil personnel all liars and I am not referring to Jewish personnel. Amazing how everyone is out to blame the poor, innocent Nazis for the murder of 6 million Jews and 6 million non jews. Tell you what, make a website stating the human race didn't exist before 100 years ago and you will have loonies crawling out from under the same rocks as the Holocaust deniers like you came from. Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Flight Simulator 2004 pro 4CDs, Eurowings 2004, Sea Plane Adventures, Concorde, HONG KONG 2004, World Airlines, other Addons, Sky Ranch, Jumbo 747, Greece 2000 [include El.Venizelos], Polynesia 2000, Real Airports, Private Wings, FLITESTAR V8.5 - JEP | vvcd | Home Built | 0 | September 22nd 04 07:16 PM |
Logging approaches | Ron Garrison | Instrument Flight Rules | 109 | March 2nd 04 05:54 PM |
FAA letter on flight into known icing | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 78 | December 22nd 03 07:44 PM |
Sim time loggable? | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | December 6th 03 07:47 AM |