US Coverup of Me-262 Mach Flight

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:36:25 -0700, Steve Hix
wrote:

In article ,
"James Hart" wrote:

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
"James Hart" wrote:

B2431 wrote:
..you get the wingless 130 going?...
shudder
--

-Gord.

I am still looking for a copy of that clip.
http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/c-a30_down.avi


Error, file no longer there.

Try again, server's been taking a bit of a hit with a file that size but a
dozen or so have grabbed it so far according to the logs.

Still down. :{

I'll try again later.

The problem is there is a typo in the URL, it should be

http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/c-130_down.avi

I tried that and had no problem downloading it...

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(

remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

machf wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:36:25 -0700, Steve Hix
wrote:

In article ,
"James Hart" wrote:

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
"James Hart" wrote:

B2431 wrote:
..you get the wingless 130 going?...
shudder
--

-Gord.

I am still looking for a copy of that clip.
http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/c-a30_down.avi


Error, file no longer there.

Try again, server's been taking a bit of a hit with a file that
size but a dozen or so have grabbed it so far according to the logs.

Still down. :{

I'll try again later.

The problem is there is a typo in the URL, it should be

http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/c-130_down.avi

I tried that and had no problem downloading it...

Sorry folks, my bad. How strange, I cut 'n' pasted from the browser when I
checked it worked but it's misspelt in the original post.

--
James...
http://www.jameshart.co.uk/

machf wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:36:25 -0700, Steve Hix
wrote:

In article ,
"James Hart" wrote:

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
"James Hart" wrote:

B2431 wrote:
..you get the wingless 130 going?...
shudder
--

-Gord.

I am still looking for a copy of that clip.
http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/c-a30_down.avi


Error, file no longer there.

Try again, server's been taking a bit of a hit with a file that size but a
dozen or so have grabbed it so far according to the logs.

Still down. :{

I'll try again later.

The problem is there is a typo in the URL, it should be

http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/c-130_down.avi

I tried that and had no problem downloading it...

Exactly...I said that a couple days ago...
--

-Gord.

(B2431) wrote:

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 02:32:52 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

Mike Marron wrote:

(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


Two booms?...isn't that the signature of an a/c achieving mach
one?. So the P-38 IS supersonic then?.

Actually, it must have been hyper-sonic since both booms arrived at
the same time :-)

Al Minyard

...plus they were likely parallel booms too, eh?


--

-Gord.

Flown by Wendy "boom boom" Whoppers?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


Yep...good friend of Major Hooters IIRC...
--

-Gord.

In article ,
machf wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 20:36:25 -0700, Steve Hix

wrote:

In article ,
"James Hart" wrote:

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
"James Hart" wrote:

B2431 wrote:
..you get the wingless 130 going?...
shudder
--

-Gord.

I am still looking for a copy of that clip.
http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/c-a30_down.avi


Error, file no longer there.

Try again, server's been taking a bit of a hit with a file that size but a
dozen or so have grabbed it so far according to the logs.

Still down. :{

I'll try again later.

The problem is there is a typo in the URL, it should be

http://jameshart.mine.nu/ngs/c-130_down.avi

I tried that and had no problem downloading it...

Got it! Thanks.

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.

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."

"Dave Kearton" wrote in message ...
"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mike Marron wrote:
(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.

*Ahem*
ITYM "any truthful FAA Sea Vixen driver.."

--


For me, I am always confusing the Javelin and Sea Vixen. With similar
performance

I'm pretty sure the DH110 at least could break the sound barrier
(possibly not in level flight, mind).

and both bush pig-ugly

Highly subjective of cours,e but I always thought the Vixen a fairly
elegant looking bird.

Still no excuse for confusing the gin-sipping gentlemen of the FAA
with the infinitely lesser Crab though..

"Tom" wrote in message
om...


For me, I am always confusing the Javelin and Sea Vixen. With
similar
performance

I'm pretty sure the DH110 at least could break the sound barrier
(possibly not in level flight, mind).


It was supersonic in a dive and DeHavilland had plans
for a version with thin wings that would have been
capable of Mach 1.4 in level flight

and both bush pig-ugly

Highly subjective of cours,e but I always thought the Vixen a fairly
elegant looking bird.


Agreed although the off centreline cockpit looks a little odd.

Keith