Funny story: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1971War/ArunPrakash.html

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Funny story:
> http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1971War/ArunPrakash.html
>

Although Yeager is without question one of the finest sticks the United
States military has ever turned out, and he is entitled to many accolades
involving his fine career, the following statement accompanying the
photograph of Gen Yeager from this article is incorrect.

"The first man to break the sound barrier - Brigadier General Charles E
"Chuck" Yeager, USAF."

In fact, Chuck Yeager was the first man to beak the speed of sound in LEVEL
FLIGHT.
His flight in the X1 at Edwards followed by a week the flight of the first
man to actually break the sound barrier. That man was George Welch. The
aircraft was the North American F86 prototype.
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Funny story:
>> http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1971War/ArunPrakash.html
>>
>
> Although Yeager is without question one of the finest sticks the
> United States military has ever turned out, and he is entitled to
> many accolades involving his fine career, the following statement
> accompanying the photograph of Gen Yeager from this article is
> incorrect.
> "The first man to break the sound barrier - Brigadier General Charles
> E "Chuck" Yeager, USAF."
>
> In fact, Chuck Yeager was the first man to beak the speed of sound in
> LEVEL FLIGHT.
> His flight in the X1 at Edwards followed by a week the flight of the
> first man to actually break the sound barrier. That man was George
> Welch. The aircraft was the North American F86 prototype.
> Dudley Henriques

And there are stories of pilots during WWII doing it in powered dives. But
the X1 was the first to do it with only the power it's engines were
producing.

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> Although Yeager is without question one of the finest sticks the United
> States military has ever turned out, and he is entitled to many accolades
> involving his fine career, the following statement accompanying the
> photograph of Gen Yeager from this article is incorrect.
>
> "The first man to break the sound barrier - Brigadier General Charles E
> "Chuck" Yeager, USAF."
>
> In fact, Chuck Yeager was the first man to beak the speed of sound in
> LEVEL FLIGHT.
> His flight in the X1 at Edwards followed by a week the flight of the first
> man to actually break the sound barrier. That man was George Welch. The
> aircraft was the North American F86 prototype.
> Dudley Henriques

Fact? A fact is something known to be true; a verifiable truth known by
actual experience or observation. It is a fact that Yeager exceeded Mach 1
in the X-1, Welch PROBABLY did it earlier in the XF-86, but there is no
verifiable evidence that he did.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> And there are stories of pilots during WWII doing it in powered dives.

But those are just stories.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Funny story:
>>> http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1971War/ArunPrakash.html
>>>
>>
>> Although Yeager is without question one of the finest sticks the
>> United States military has ever turned out, and he is entitled to
>> many accolades involving his fine career, the following statement
>> accompanying the photograph of Gen Yeager from this article is
>> incorrect.
>> "The first man to break the sound barrier - Brigadier General Charles
>> E "Chuck" Yeager, USAF."
>>
>> In fact, Chuck Yeager was the first man to beak the speed of sound in
>> LEVEL FLIGHT.
>> His flight in the X1 at Edwards followed by a week the flight of the
>> first man to actually break the sound barrier. That man was George
>> Welch. The aircraft was the North American F86 prototype.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> And there are stories of pilots during WWII doing it in powered dives. But
> the X1 was the first to do it with only the power it's engines were
> producing.

Actually, no prop fighter can exceed mach 1, as a shock wave builds on the
propeller disc and the prop itself will prevent supersonic airflow. The tips
however can easily go supersonic and can easily cause catastrophic failure
at the prop hub.
I had a friend who experimented deeply into the transonic range with prop
fighters while a test pilot for Curtis Wright. Using a P47 Thunderbolt and
many different propeller combinations, Herb Fisher never actually got the
Jug through the barrier.
Another friend, Erik Shilling of the Flying Tigers, lost a good friend when
the friend was playing around with a P40 in China. In a deep dive over the
field, the prop was heard to go supersonic just before it tore the P40 apart
in the air.
Tony Levier from Lockheed did many deep dives in the P38 dealing with mach
tuck and never put the Lightning through the barrier. The Brits at Boscombe
Down after the war worked with Spitfires in high mach dives with no success
there either.
On the German side, one ME-262 driver was absolutely certain he had gone
mach 1 in a dive, but later tests proved he was dealing with the lag in his
pitot static system as that affected his airspeed readout. The 262 due to
design couldn't break mach 1 anyway which later tests at Wright Pat proved
out without question.
I personally have a P51 out to about .70 mach in a dive and I can tell you
it was one scary experience :-))
George Welch did it the week before Yeager while on a test flight in the
Sabre prototype.
Through the years of my own career, I either knew or met at least a half
dozed people who were at Pancho's bar eating lunch the day Welch went
through. The boom knocked all the pictures off the walls at Pancho's. The
story goes she wasn't all that happy about it either as she liked Yeager and
knew of the rivalry to be the first. But that's another story :-))
Dudley Henriques

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Although Yeager is without question one of the finest sticks the United
>> States military has ever turned out, and he is entitled to many accolades
>> involving his fine career, the following statement accompanying the
>> photograph of Gen Yeager from this article is incorrect.
>>
>> "The first man to break the sound barrier - Brigadier General Charles E
>> "Chuck" Yeager, USAF."
>>
>> In fact, Chuck Yeager was the first man to beak the speed of sound in
>> LEVEL FLIGHT.
>> His flight in the X1 at Edwards followed by a week the flight of the
>> first man to actually break the sound barrier. That man was George Welch.
>> The aircraft was the North American F86 prototype.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Fact? A fact is something known to be true; a verifiable truth known by
> actual experience or observation. It is a fact that Yeager exceeded Mach
> 1 in the X-1, Welch PROBABLY did it earlier in the XF-86, but there is no
> verifiable evidence that he did.

Welch's flight the day he went mach 1 was not scheduled as a try for the
barrier. He did it on his own, knowing full well that Yeager was scheduled
the following week to make the attempt in the X1.
There were about 30 people at Pancho's that heard the boom; almost all of
them employees of various aircraft manufactures and military personel
assigned at Edwards for flight test. These people were all quite
knowledgable on the subject of Yeager, Welch, Bell, and the prototype Sabre.
At least 2 of these people knew about Welch making the attempt that day even
though unscheduled.
If you mean by not having proof that Welch's flight didn't make the news and
that it was hushed up by the Air Force, you are absolutely correct. If you
mean that the people I know personally who were there when it happened
were"mistaken", I'm afraid I would tend to allow you your belief and simply
let it go at that :-)
All this having been said, I believe anyone seriously researching deeply
into this event will come up with enough "proof" to choke a horse.
This one is right up there with needing the "proof" that it was Rex Barber
who got Yamamoto and not Lamphier. Given enough time, the Welch flight will
take it's proper place in history.
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> Welch's flight the day he went mach 1 was not scheduled as a try for the
> barrier. He did it on his own, knowing full well that Yeager was scheduled
> the following week to make the attempt in the X1.
> There were about 30 people at Pancho's that heard the boom; almost all of
> them employees of various aircraft manufactures and military personel
> assigned at Edwards for flight test. These people were all quite
> knowledgable on the subject of Yeager, Welch, Bell, and the prototype
> Sabre. At least 2 of these people knew about Welch making the attempt that
> day even though unscheduled.
> If you mean by not having proof that Welch's flight didn't make the news
> and that it was hushed up by the Air Force, you are absolutely correct. If
> you mean that the people I know personally who were there when it happened
> were"mistaken", I'm afraid I would tend to allow you your belief and
> simply let it go at that :-)
> All this having been said, I believe anyone seriously researching deeply
> into this event will come up with enough "proof" to choke a horse.
> This one is right up there with needing the "proof" that it was Rex Barber
> who got Yamamoto and not Lamphier. Given enough time, the Welch flight
> will take it's proper place in history.
>

I'm familiar with Welch's flight that day. That's why I can confidently say
that Welch probably exceeded Mach 1 before Yeager did, but that's all that
can be said about it.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Welch's flight the day he went mach 1 was not scheduled as a try for the
>> barrier. He did it on his own, knowing full well that Yeager was
>> scheduled the following week to make the attempt in the X1.
>> There were about 30 people at Pancho's that heard the boom; almost all of
>> them employees of various aircraft manufactures and military personel
>> assigned at Edwards for flight test. These people were all quite
>> knowledgable on the subject of Yeager, Welch, Bell, and the prototype
>> Sabre. At least 2 of these people knew about Welch making the attempt
>> that day even though unscheduled.
>> If you mean by not having proof that Welch's flight didn't make the news
>> and that it was hushed up by the Air Force, you are absolutely correct.
>> If you mean that the people I know personally who were there when it
>> happened were"mistaken", I'm afraid I would tend to allow you your belief
>> and simply let it go at that :-)
>> All this having been said, I believe anyone seriously researching deeply
>> into this event will come up with enough "proof" to choke a horse.
>> This one is right up there with needing the "proof" that it was Rex
>> Barber who got Yamamoto and not Lamphier. Given enough time, the Welch
>> flight will take it's proper place in history.
>>
>
> I'm familiar with Welch's flight that day. That's why I can confidently
> say that Welch probably exceeded Mach 1 before Yeager did, but that's all
> that can be said about it.
>

This issue is now and has been for many years, an open ended issue. I can
assure you that there are many out here deeply involved in seeing to it that
this is indeed NOT "all that can be said about it "

Just as Rex Barber finally received the credit he was due for the Yamamoto
mission, so perhaps will George Welch eventually receive his due place in
aviation history.
I can also tell you that in the flight test community as we speak, Yeager's
flight in the X1 never comes up that Welch isn't immediately mentioned and
the scenario corrected to what actually occurred at Edwards before the
drinks go down.
So I would agree with you that in some circles it might be true about all
having been said on the issue. Fortunately in the venues directly related
to the issue, this is far from being a fact of life :-)
Dudley Henriques

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Welch's flight the day he went mach 1 was not scheduled as a try for the
>> barrier. He did it on his own, knowing full well that Yeager was scheduled
>> the following week to make the attempt in the X1.
>> There were about 30 people at Pancho's that heard the boom; almost all of
>> them employees of various aircraft manufactures and military personel
>> assigned at Edwards for flight test. These people were all quite
>> knowledgable on the subject of Yeager, Welch, Bell, and the prototype
>> Sabre. At least 2 of these people knew about Welch making the attempt that
>> day even though unscheduled.
>> If you mean by not having proof that Welch's flight didn't make the news
>> and that it was hushed up by the Air Force, you are absolutely correct. If
>> you mean that the people I know personally who were there when it happened
>> were"mistaken", I'm afraid I would tend to allow you your belief and
>> simply let it go at that :-)
>> All this having been said, I believe anyone seriously researching deeply
>> into this event will come up with enough "proof" to choke a horse.
>> This one is right up there with needing the "proof" that it was Rex Barber
>> who got Yamamoto and not Lamphier. Given enough time, the Welch flight
>> will take it's proper place in history.
>>
>
> I'm familiar with Welch's flight that day. That's why I can confidently say
> that Welch probably exceeded Mach 1 before Yeager did, but that's all that
> can be said about it.

Were you there? What additional proof exists for Yeager's flight?

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Welch's flight the day he went mach 1 was not scheduled as a try for the
>>> barrier. He did it on his own, knowing full well that Yeager was
>>> scheduled the following week to make the attempt in the X1.
>>> There were about 30 people at Pancho's that heard the boom; almost all
>>> of them employees of various aircraft manufactures and military personel
>>> assigned at Edwards for flight test. These people were all quite
>>> knowledgable on the subject of Yeager, Welch, Bell, and the prototype
>>> Sabre. At least 2 of these people knew about Welch making the attempt
>>> that day even though unscheduled.
>>> If you mean by not having proof that Welch's flight didn't make the news
>>> and that it was hushed up by the Air Force, you are absolutely correct.
>>> If you mean that the people I know personally who were there when it
>>> happened were"mistaken", I'm afraid I would tend to allow you your
>>> belief and simply let it go at that :-)
>>> All this having been said, I believe anyone seriously researching deeply
>>> into this event will come up with enough "proof" to choke a horse.
>>> This one is right up there with needing the "proof" that it was Rex
>>> Barber who got Yamamoto and not Lamphier. Given enough time, the Welch
>>> flight will take it's proper place in history.
>>>
>>
>> I'm familiar with Welch's flight that day. That's why I can confidently
>> say that Welch probably exceeded Mach 1 before Yeager did, but that's all
>> that can be said about it.
>
> Were you there? What additional proof exists for Yeager's flight?
>
> Matt

Actually, I wasn't there either Matt, but I did spend the greater part of my
life downing drinks with the guys who were :-)
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> This issue is now and has been for many years, an open ended issue. I can
> assure you that there are many out here deeply involved in seeing to it
> that this is indeed NOT "all that can be said about it "
>

Fine, let them present the data.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Were you there?

No. Does that mean it didn't happen?


>
> What additional proof exists for Yeager's flight?
>

Hard data.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message

>> This issue is now and has been for many years, an open ended issue. I can
>> assure you that there are many out here deeply involved in seeing to it
>> that this is indeed NOT "all that can be said about it "
>>
>
> Fine, let them present the data.

What's at stake for them if they don't?

-c

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Were you there?
>
> No. Does that mean it didn't happen?
>
>
>> What additional proof exists for Yeager's flight?
>>
>
> Hard data.
>
>

Such as?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> This issue is now and has been for many years, an open ended issue. I can
>> assure you that there are many out here deeply involved in seeing to it
>> that this is indeed NOT "all that can be said about it "
>>
>
> Fine, let them present the data.
>

I don't know what you mean by "present the data" The story has been out here
as common knowledge since 1945 and is nothing new, especially in the
military flight test community.
I'll paste the story in below simply for others besides yourself who might
not be familiar with Welch and might enjoy reading some more about him.

Believe me, I suffer no illusions of anything but a returning one liner from
you as always saying that it's all just conjecture. :-)
No problem at all Steven. I completely accept that you believe it's all
conjecture and not fact.
I can't be any more "agreeable" than that now can I :-))
Dudley Henriques

The George Welch Story;
After the surrender of Japan, many major aircraft contracts were greatly
scaled back or cancelled outright. Fortunately, North American Aviation had
a diversity of contracts and most projects continued (albeit at
significantly reduced numbers). Of the 2,000 P-51H fighters on order, only
555 would be built. The P-51M (a Dallas built variant of the P-51H) was
simply cancelled. North American’s XP-82 Twin Mustang program continued on
although it would be cut back as well. Unfortunately, the XP-82 suffered
some unexpected development woes, and combined with the XSN2J program,
George Welch found himself a very busy test pilot. Welch gained his first
jet fighter experience flying the XFJ-1 destined for the Navy. Bestowed with
the name Fury, the XFJ-1 was a straight-wing fighter that proved to be
rather slower than had been hoped. Being somewhat disappointed, the Navy
would cut back its order to just thirty examples. Meanwhile, the Army Air
Force expressed an interest in a swept-wing version proposed by North
American. Benefiting from research data captured in Germany, NA’s design
team, headed by Lee Atwood, conducted extensive wind tunnel testing and
eventually produced a design featuring a wing sweep of 35 degrees. Very much
impressed by the data and design (especially when compared to the
straight-wing design that they were initially offered), an order was placed
for three prototypes to be designated the XP-86, and a contract was signed
in September of 1945.

As the XP-86 was being completed, George Welch had already been designated
to make the first series of test flights. Welch spent a considerable amount
of his time in the engineering offices located at North American Aviation’s
Inglewood facility. Here he would grill the design team about the new
fighter’s expected stability and handling. Welch also quizzed the team about
the prototype’s potential maximum speed. Being informed that the new
fighter, now called the Sabre, should be able to handle 650 knots, Welch
formulated a plan in his mind that had it been known, would have caused his
employer many a sleepless night.

After a series of extensive ground tests, resplendent in its polished
aluminum skin, the XP-86 was disassembled and trucked to Muroc Field (later
renamed Edwards Air Force Base). On September 18, 1947, Stuart Symington
took the oath of office as the first Secretary of the new, independent
United States Air Force. Before the XP-86 was ready for its first taxi
tests, Symington made a point of notifying North American that he expected
them not to steal any thunder from the new Air Force’s pet research project,
the rocket powered Bell XS-1. Symington’s orders were explicit. Having been
briefed that the XP-86 was capable of exceeding Mach 1 in a dive, the
Secretary fully expected that North American Aviation would wait until the
XS-1 had made its mark in history before they claimed their portion of the
supersonic sweepstakes. Besides, Larry Bell had already complained to the
President about North American plotting to upstage his rocket plane.

Unfortunately, the politics behind the scenes were totally lost on Welch.
Not only did he not care one whit about Symington or his edict; Welch was a
civilian and not employed by the Government. Moreover, George had long since
demonstrated a tendency toward independence. Knowing the potential of the
Sabre, there was no way that Welch could pass up an opportunity to explore
its limits, and perhaps, gain some personal retaliation for the P-39 “Iron
Dog”, by sticking it to the guys at Bell.





One of the first aircraft that Welch tested was the P-51 Mustang. The
aircraft above is a brand new, factory fresh P-51H. This was the fastest of
the Mustang line, being capable of 487 mph at 25,000 feet.

With the XP-86 reassembled at Muroc, Welch went to work on a series of taxi
tests designed to fully explore ground handling right up to takeoff speed.
These tests were done on the morning of September 29. Getting an early
start, the taxi runs were completed by 10 AM. Everyone was satisfied with
the results. Yet, a minor fuel leak promised to keep the mechanics busy for
the rest of the day.

That evening, Welch headed for his room at Pancho’s Fly Inn (later renamed
Happy Bottom Riding Club) where he normally stayed when at Muroc. A favorite
hangout for both the North American and Bell gangs, as well as most of the
test pilots on the base, Pancho’s was the place to learn what everyone else
was up to. The owner of the Fly Inn, Pancho Barnes, was a rough and tumble
aviatrix who had specialized in air racing and Hollywood stunt flying; she
had cultivated friendships across a broad spectrum of personalities. These
included Jimmy Doolittle and Mae West, to name but two. Built like a
linebacker, Pancho was a larger than life personality who had the delicate
charm and manners of a drunken cavalry trooper. Naturally, everyone loved
Pancho, who all realized as a soft touch for pilots, especially Yeager, who
she adored.

Welch went for dinner and a beer, and as was his habit, he spoke with Millie
Palmer, a local girl who made Pancho’s her home away from home. Millie was
expert at picking up tidbits of information about the various projects at
Muroc. Millie mentioned that the Bell folks didn’t expect to be flying
before the end of the week. Welch confided his plan to make a supersonic
dive during the Sabre’s first flight on Wednesday, October 1. George
explained to Millie what she should look for. “A sharp boom, like a clap of
thunder. If you hear that, be sure to write down the time, what it sounded
like, the reaction from others, stuff like that.”





Welch was one of the primary test pilots assigned to the XP-82 program. It
was the P-82 that was used as the chase plane on the early Sabre flights.
The P-82B was almost as fast as the P-51H, but had nearly twice the range.

Right on schedule, the Sabre was ready for its first flight early Wednesday
morning. After an uneventful takeoff from the dry lakebed, Welch joined up
with his chase plane. The chase pilot today was Bob Chilton in a P-82 Twin
Mustang. Riding in the P-82’s right cockpit was a cameraman, assigned to
record the flight. Chilton eased the twin engine fighter below the Sabre to
inspect the underside.

“George, your main gear doors aren’t shut.”

“I’ll put them down again.”

“The mains are down now, but the nose gear is only halfway down.”

Cycling the gear handle to the up position once again, George watched as all
the gear flags indicated up and locked.

“All appear to be up and locked,” Chilton announced.

Welch pushed the throttle up to full power and the Sabre surged forward.
“Don’t go away, Bob. I just want to feel it out a bit.”

Easing back on the stick, Welch began a steady rate climb at just under 350
mph. Zooming up at over 4,800 feet per minute; it took but a few minutes to
reach 35,000 feet. As he leveled off, airspeed quickly increased to 370 mph.
After a double-check of his instruments, Welch rolled into a 40 degree dive,
pointing the nose west, directly at Pancho’s Fly Inn, several miles away.





If ever any aircaft looked right, the XP-86 was certainly one of them. With
perfectly clean lines, the Sabre could not help but be a winner. This is how
the XP-86 appeared after being reassembled at Muroc. Within a few days, it
would punch through the sound barrier.

The airspeed indicator wound up to about 405 mph, and seemed to get stuck
there. Yet, there was no doubt that the XP-86 was still accelerating.
Everything felt normal, until passing below 30,000 feet where a tendency to
roll needed some minor correction. George pushed the nose over a bit more.
Then, suddenly, the airspeed indicator jumped beyond 470 mph and continued
to go up. Passing 25,000 feet, Welch eased back on the stick and pulled back
the throttle. Once again, there was a bit of wing roll and the airspeed
indicator jumped back from 520 to 450 mph (520 mph indicated translates to
720 mph true at this altitude, uncorrected).

Contacting Chilton, Welch joined up with the P-82 as it was time to head
back to Muroc. Due to ongoing rigging, the speed brakes had been disabled
and were not available. This would complicate the landing approach because
jet fighters took quite a while to scrub off airspeed, not having a
propeller functioning as a giant, circular air brake. Descending towards the
lakebed, Chilton slipped underneath the Sabre as Welch slowed and lowered
the landing gear. Once again, the main gear locked down. The nose gear,
however, refused to extend beyond the halfway position. Welch cycled the
gear up and down several times to no avail. He tried the emergency pump.
That too failed to push the nose strut into position. Radio discussions with
the North American engineers on the ground produced no solution. Welch even
tried pulling several Gs of loading. Nothing worked. With fuel rapidly
becoming an issue, Welch elected to make a long, straight-in approach.
Touching down at 140 mph, Welch trimmed the nose full up, intending to hold
it up as long as possible. Racing alongside the Sabre were crash trucks and
a pickup with a motion picture camera. As the Sabre’s speed dipped below 90
mph, Welch began easing the nose down. Just then, the nose gear snapped down
and locked in place. The wheel touched, and the XP-86 rolled out normally.
George’s luck had held again.

Prior to heading back to North American to brief the engineers, George
telephoned Millie Palmer. Excitedly, Millie related that a terribly loud
ba-boom had nearly blown her out of bed. The time was noted and it
corresponded to George’s dive. “Pancho”, Millie related, “is really ****ed.
You know how she feels about Yeager.” Apparently, Pancho claimed the boom
was a result of mining operations going on 30 miles away to the north. Of
course, no one had previously heard any mining explosions, nor could that
account for rattling windows only on the east facing side of the Fly Inn.
Welch chuckled and swore Millie to secrecy.

After briefing the engineering team at North American, Welch tracked down Ed
Horkey. There were some “funny” instrument readings during the dive, and
George was looking for some answers.

Test pilot Blackie Blackburn describes the conversation:

“I started at about 290 knots”, Welch explained. “In no time I’m at 350. I’m
still going down, and I’m still accelerating, but the airspeed indicator
seems stuck like there’s some kind of obstruction in the pitot tube, I push
over a little steeper and by this time I’m going through 30,000 feet. All of
a sudden, the airspeed needle flips to 440 knots. The aircraft feels fine,
no funny noises, no vibration. Wanted to roll to the left, but no big deal.
Still, I leveled out at 25,000 and came back on the power. The airspeed
needle flicked back to 390. Whadya think?”

“What did the flight recorder look like?”

“It wasn’t on the flight card, I was just feeling it out, so I wasn’t
running the camera. Anyway, there wasn’t anything wrong with the airspeed
system. They checked it out after I landed.”

Horkey guessed that Welch had run into a previously unknown Mach effect.
Indeed he had. What Welch had observed was a phenomenon that would later be
called, “Mach jump”. Today, “Mach jump” is generally considered solid
evidence of speeds in excess of Mach 1. Of course, on October 1, 1947, no
had ever seen it before.

Welch made the second and third flights with the landing gear mechanically
locked in the down position. The revised and more powerful hydraulic
cylinder for the nose gear had not yet arrived. So, the gear was bolted down
and the gear lever was safety wired in the down position. However, there was
another reason for bolting down the landing gear. Welch’s ba-boom had also
hammered Muroc. Without saying so, the Bell and NACA people were generally
unhappy about the rumors comsuming much of the chit-chat on the base. The
XS-1 had still failed to push beyond Mach .98. The chatter around the base
was that the XP-86 was responsible for the boom that had rattled windows and
scared the hell out of everyone. People had raced outside looking for the
telltale plume of black smoke that proclaimed the end of an aircraft, and
maybe its pilot. But, there was no smoke. There was no crash. The only
excitement centered on the crash trucks racing out to meet the swept-wing
Sabre as it returned. All in all, it looked as if Welch had pulled the feet
out from under XS-1 program. Even though there was no official statement
from North American, despite unconvincing denials by Sabre team, the word
was out at Muroc. Welch and the XP-86 had gone supersonic.

As soon as Welch landed after his second low speed flight in the “fixed
gear” XP-86, he was informed that his wife Jan had gone into labor with
their first child. Welch flew the company plane up to Los Angeles, but
arrived after his son had been born. That evening, Jan phoned her family to
announce the birth of Gilles, and of course, tell them about George breaking
the sound barrier. Years later, Jan’s brother Jimmy would recall that he
could not determine if Jan was more excited about her new baby, or her
husband’s supersonic adventure.

The XP-86 was being prepared for its fourth flight. Again, despite replacing
the nose gear hydraulic cylinder, the schedule called for this flight to be
made with the landing still bolted down. Welch objected. He argued that
there was no solid reasoning for this, and flying with the gear bolted down
was downright dangerous. He was right. Without the ability to raise the
landing gear, an engine failure could be fatal. Welch argued that the Sabre
“glides like a rock” with the wheels down. Finally it was agreed that the
gear would be unbolted and functional, but the flight test parameters would
remain unchanged.

On the morning of October 14, Chilton and Welch discussed how they could
disguise another supersonic dive. They decided to maintain a constant
chatter on the radio, transmitting test results for tests completed early in
the flight. That might work, but there was no way to disguise the sonic
boom. It was generally understood that later in the morning, Yeager and the
XS-1 would be trying for Mach 1. But, there was still time for one dive
before the official title was handed to Yeager.





George Welch roars off of the lakebed runway to begin his October 14th
flight. After completing his test card, Welch would climb to 37,000 feet and
for the second time in two weeks, dive the Sabre through the sound barrier.
This time, he beat Chuck Yeager by just 15 minutes.

Taking off from the lakebed, Welch immediately recognized that he had a
problem. The airspeed indicator needle was stuck on zero. Gauging his speed,
Welch brought the Sabre down and was met by the ground crew. The problem was
found and fixed within minutes. During preflight calibration, the pitot tube
line had been disconnected. Someone had failed to reconnect it. Another 30
minutes went by while the plane’s fuel was topped off. Finally, just before
9 AM, the Sabre roared off the desert runway and climbed into the bright
azure sky.

Climbing out to 10,000 feet, Welch performed all of the low speed maneuvers
and tests called for on the flight test card. Yet, he reported only half the
results. Retracting the landing gear, he waited until Chilton gave him a
thumbs-up that all looked normal. Advancing the throttle to full power, he
eased the Sabre into a climb and soared up to 37,000 feet. As he climbed,
George read out the second half of the low speed test results. Leveling off,
he checked his instruments one final time. As he did on his first dive,
Welch rolled the Sabre into a 40 degree dive and pointed the nose directly
at Pancho’s. As the jet accelerated, he read out the last of the test
results. Just like the first dive, a little wing roll followed by the
airspeed indicator needle jumping announced that he had exceeded the speed
of sound. Except that this time, he was going even faster, having started
his dive 2,000 feet higher. Unlike the dive 13 days earlier, Welch did not
pull off power when he passed 25,000 feet. Instead, he executed a full
power, 4g pullout. Welch did not realize it at the time, but this maneuver
was to greatly increase the force of his sonic boom as it slammed into the
earth.





Flying over Rogers Dry Lake on November 13, 1947, the XP-86 with George
Welch at the controls would be officially measured at Mach 1.04 by NACA's
Radar Theodolite. The tremendous speed of the Sabre had the potential to
cause the Air Force great embarrassment.

Easing off power, Welch scanned the sky looking for Chilton’s P-82. He
spotted what he at first thought was Chilton. Then he realized that the
plane had more than two engines. It was a B-29, a mothership, lumbering to
altitude with the XS-1 in its belly. Slightly behind, on either side were
the P-80s of chase pilots Hoover and Frost. It dawned on him that his shock
wave might have hit the big bomber. If it had, there was no doubt that
everyone aboard would have gotten the message, loud and clear. Finding
Chilton, Welch headed back to the base. The landing gear came down as
advertised and George greased it in like the pro he was. A few minutes
later, after shutting down and climbing out, Welch heard a distant ba-boom.
A check of his watch indicated 10:30 AM. Attaining a speed of Mach 1.06,
Yeager had finally done it.

That night there would be no celebrating at Pancho’s. The Air Force had
clamped a secrecy lid on Yeager’s flight. The party was held at several of
the pilot’s houses. A drunken Yeager managed to crash his motorcycle in a
knucklehead display of derring-do. Of course, Pancho’s was open for
business, and the North American gang had gathered for a few drinks. Pancho
was walking on air, her darling boy having blasted the Fly Inn with a boom
that broke some large windows on the east side of the building. Major
General Joseph Swing (an old friend from the war) was on hand and asked
Welch about the two separate booms. The first was extremely loud, the
second, 15 minutes later, was far more subdued. Welch suggested that it came
from a V-2 rocket out of White Sands. General Swing knew otherwise. Swing
had earned a tremendous reputation for his leading an airborne operation
that freed over 2,000 American POWs from a Japanese camp on Luzon. Swing’s
reputation and his close friendship with General Eisenhower would come into
play later.





Very few photographs were taken of the XP-86 using color film. This photo,
like the previous one, was probably taken on November 13, 1947. Welch can be
identified by his unique, orange flying helmet.

Between October 14 and November 4, Welch had taken the Sabre up 19 times,
with eight of those being labeled as “high Mach dives”. The constant
hammering of sonic booms finally convinced the Air Force and NACA to employ
the same measuring equipment used for the XS-1, to determine the actual
speed of the Sabre. On November 13, Welch was “officially” clocked at Mach
1.02 and later that same day, Mach 1.04 was attained. On both flights, the
airspeed needle had jumped just as before. Between October 1 and February
28, Welch made at least 68 flights, of which, 23 were supersonic. During the
same time period, the XS-1 made seven flights, with but only three were
supersonic. Indeed, the vast majority of booms heard in the desert over
those months belonged to Welch and the XP-86. More importantly, I believe,
the Sabre was a real combat aircraft. It had guns. It could deliver bombs
and rockets. It could takeoff and land under its own power. No wonder Bell
was worried.

Despite the tight security surrounding the XS-1 program, the story of Yeager’s
flight was leaked to a reporter from Aviation Week magazine. In an issue
dated December 22, 1947, an article appeared with the glaring headline:
“Bell XS-1 Makes Supersonic Flight”. The magazine was released on December
20th. The cat was certainly out of the bag.





George Welch posed for this photo shortly after the Air Force announced that
he had flown the XP-86 through the sound barrier. For political reasons, the
Secretary of the Air Force post dated the event by nearly seven months.

Dutch Kindelburger was the founder of North American Aviation, and was still
president of the company. He happened to be visiting the Pentagon just three
days before Christmas when he was informed that Stuart Symington wanted to
see him, right now! Upon arriving at the Secretary’s office, everyone else
was asked to leave and the door was closed. Dutch was handed a copy of
Aviation Week, opened to the XS-1 article. Dutch shrugged, this was old news
to anyone who had been at Muroc. Symington went on to explain that General
Joe Swing had seen the article and claimed that Welch had beat Yeager, not
once, but twice. Kindelburger explained the odd behavior of the airspeed
indicator, and informed the Secretary that testing in November had confirmed
the airspeed indicator’s behavior and the fact that the XP-86 had broken the
sound barrier. Symington was dumbfounded. He was in terrible bind. The
President had promised Larry Bell that the XS-1 would be the first to go
supersonic. Not only that, but the fact that the XP-86 “officially” broke
the barrier just days after the rocket plane created another problem. Why
spend so much money on the XS-1, when its technology wasn’t even needed?






A solution was worked out that included North American sitting on the story
until the Air Force felt it was safe to issue a press release. This would
allow Symington to get the maximum mileage out of the XS-1 and Yeager. Then,
when it was politically safe, the world would be informed of the Sabre
punching through the mythical barrier. True to his word, Kindelburger kept
the story under wraps. In June of 1948, a press release announced that the
XP-86, piloted by George Welch had broken the sound barrier on April 26th.





Bell's XS-1 was designed specifically to break the sound barrier. However,
the technology of the XS-1 was, in some regards, actually less advanced that
that of the XP-86. Air Force Captain Chuck Yeager was assigned the job of
piloting the rocket-plane. After slowly sneaking up on Mach 1, Yeager
finally pushed the XS-1 through the sound barrier on October 14, 1947.
However, George Welch and the XP-86 had already gone supersonic twice
before. It appears that the Air Force is beginning to feel the heat and can
no longer ignore the evidence supporting George Welch and North American's
XP-86 Sabre. The Air Force Museum web site has now added three key words
when they describe Yeager's Mach 1 flight. The ammended language is as
follows: "Capt. Charles E. Yeager, on the ninth flight of the Air Force test
series, exceeded the speed of sound IN LEVEL FLIGHT."

Since the press release of 1948, the story of the XP-86 and George Welch has
remained little more than rumor and legend. In the early 1990s, a former
North American test pilot began the research for a book that would finally
tell the truth about who was the first man to fly faster than sound. Al
(Blackie) Blackburn labored for several years, gathering evidence and
interviews. Finally, in 1998, his book was released. It had an immediate
impact within the aviation community. The Smithsonian’s Air and Space
magazine published a condensation of the book. The Air Force has denied that
Welch was first. However, even the U.S. Air Force cannot totally ignore the
existing wealth of evidence, the weight of which, is more than compelling.
The official web site of the Air Force Museum has ammended its language and
added the words; "IN LEVEL FLIGHT" to their story of the famed supersonic
flight made by Yeager in the XS-1 on October 14, 1947. Fifty one years of
history will have to be rewritten to incorporate Welch and his
accomplishment. Like any massive organization, the military is terribly slow
to accept change. This is exacerbated by the realization that the Air Force’s
greatest hero since World War Two will have to, at the minimum, share his
place on the pedestal of fame. If anyone should have any doubts, the
evidence, if properly considered, is conclusive. Let’s view this in terms of
presenting the evidence as if in a criminal trial. Would the evidence result
in a conviction?

You be the judge.

Motive: Welch clearly demonstrated a desire to push the Sabre through Mach
1. His discussions with the design engineers at North American and with his
friends and family are proof positive of this.

Opportunity: Welch had two opportunities to dive the XP-86 prior to Yeager’s
record flight.

Weapon: There can be no doubt that the XP-86 could exceed Mach 1 in a dive.
This was officially established on November 13, 1947. There were no changes
made to the aircraft that could improve performance between October 1 and
November 13. So, there is no doubt that the XP-86 was capable of supersonic
flight from day one.

Witnesses: There were hundreds, if not thousands of people who felt and
heard the two sonic booms of October 1 and 14. Several have since testified
to hearing the booms. In addition, we have the testimony of those who spoke
with Welch where he admitted to making unauthorized supersonic dives.

Additional evidence: Welch’s flight logbook contains entries for all
supersonic flights, including those not authorized. "Mach Jump": Welch was
the first to report this phenomenon. No one had observed "Mach Jump" prior
to the flight. Yet, today it is considered as decisive evidence of
supersonic flight.

Summation: Welch announced his intention to dive the XP-86 through the sound
barrier. Welch had at least two opportunities to do so. Welch was flying an
airplane that was easily capable of exceeding Mach 1 in a dive. Welch told
several credible people that he had flown through the sonic barrier. There
were hundreds of witnesses, including one General and other high ranking
military and civilian personnel who heard and felt the sonic booms. Welch
witnesses a phenomenon that only someone who had exceeded Mach 1 would see.
He reported it before any other pilot. Therefore, he could not invent it.
Welch's logbook lists the two flights as high Mach (the same terms used for
the official speed runs).

The Verdict: Guilty as hell.





Well into the XP-86 test program, George posed in civilian garb with a
Sabre. Where one earth, did he get that suit and bow tie?! After the F-86
was deployed to Japan and South Korea, Welch was sent to Japanese and South
Korean fighter bases to perform demonstration flights for new Sabre pilots.
According to his youngest son, Jolyon Welch, George wormed his way into
flying combat missions. During these missions, Welch is said to have
"unofficially" dispatched as many as six MiG-15 fighters in less than 20
sorties! When veteran F-86 pilots were asked if they knew anything about
Welch flying in combat, the general response stayed very close to one
pilot's answer; "Wheaties preferred to observe his students while on the
job." The Air Force has never officially commented on George's training
habits.

Having taken the prototype YF-100 Super Sabre (there was no XF-100)
supersonic on its first flight on May 25, 1953, Welch reinforced all claims
to his being the first man through the sound barrier. This was typical Welch
behavior. Unfortunately, George cannot testify for himself. On Columbus Day
of 1954, Welch was performing a demonstration flying the new F-100A. His
flight card called for a symmetrical pull-up at 1.55 Mach. The maneuver
would generate more than 7 Gs. As he began the maneuver, the airflow over
the wing suddenly burbled, completely blanking the newly redesigned and
smaller vertical stabilizer. The fighter yawed slightly and then suddenly
turned partially sideways to the direction of travel. The nose folded up at
the windscreen and crushed Welch in his ejection seat. Miraculously, the
seat fired and carried Welch clear of the plane as it disintegrated.
Ejecting at supersonic speeds is not only hard on the human body, it’s hard
on parachutes as well. Welch’s chute was nearly shredded by the violent
blast of air. With many panels blown out, the rate of descent was much too
fast to avoid serious injury, or even death. When rescuers arrived at Welch’s
side, he was barely alive. He died before he could be transported to a
hospital. Ironically, Yeager had complained that the F-100A, with its
smaller vertical stabilizer, was dangerously unstable. Welch elected to fly
it anyway.

In a span of just under 14 years, George Welch had established himself as
one of America’s greatest aviators. His remarkable accomplishments in World
War Two would be enough to cause people to remember him in both books and
films. Adding in his postwar adventures only serves to place him far above
all but a handful of American aviation figures. So, why is it that Welch is
virtually unknown outside of the aviation community today? Not only was he
the first man to break the sound barrier, he was also the first to do so in
an air-breathing aircraft in level flight (YF-100).

Perhaps, the next time you look up at a passing jet, or watch a modern
fighter roar across the sky, just maybe, you will remember George Welch and
his contributions to America and aviation

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> What's at stake for them if they don't?
>

Nothing that I can see.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Such as?
>

Mach number.

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't know what you mean by "present the data" The story has been out
> here as common knowledge since 1945 and is nothing new, especially in the
> military flight test community.
>

How prescient.


>
> I'll paste the story in below simply for others besides yourself who might
> not be familiar with Welch and might enjoy reading some more about him.
>

I'm familiar with Welch.


>
> Believe me, I suffer no illusions of anything but a returning one liner
> from you as always saying that it's all just conjecture. :-)
> No problem at all Steven. I completely accept that you believe it's all
> conjecture and not fact.
>

Just as I accept that you believe it's fact.

>>>>> "DH" == Dudley Henriques > writes:
DH> it's proper place

"*its* proper place" dammit. There are only two spellings:

its -- possesive
it's -- contraction of it is

--
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go." -
Oscar Wilde

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>> "DH" == Dudley Henriques > writes:
> DH> it's proper place
>
> "*its* proper place" dammit. There are only two spellings:
>
> its -- possesive
> it's -- contraction of it is


I'll have to admit I wasn't an English major by a long shot, but isn't the
word "possessive" spelled with two s's and not one?
:-)
Dudley Henriques

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >> Funny story:
> >> http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1971War/ArunPrakash.html
> >>
> >
> > Although Yeager is without question one of the finest sticks the
> > United States military has ever turned out, and he is entitled to
> > many accolades involving his fine career, the following statement
> > accompanying the photograph of Gen Yeager from this article is
> > incorrect.
> > "The first man to break the sound barrier - Brigadier General Charles
> > E "Chuck" Yeager, USAF."
> >
> > In fact, Chuck Yeager was the first man to beak the speed of sound in
> > LEVEL FLIGHT.
> > His flight in the X1 at Edwards followed by a week the flight of the
> > first man to actually break the sound barrier. That man was George
> > Welch. The aircraft was the North American F86 prototype.
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> And there are stories of pilots during WWII doing it in powered dives. But
> the X1 was the first to do it with only the power it's engines were
> producing.

Those stories arose from the highly erroneous airspeed indications in
the transonic regime. No propeller-driven plane has gone fully
supersonic -- limiting Mach for them is in the .65 - .85 range. The drag
of both the airframe and the propeller disk are higher than the weight
and residual thrust of the engine to go any faster in a teminal dive. In
addition, transonic flutter is a major player here.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Funny story:
>>> http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1971War/ArunPrakash.html
>>>
>>
>> Although Yeager is without question one of the finest sticks the
>> United States military has ever turned out, and he is entitled to
>> many accolades involving his fine career, the following statement
>> accompanying the photograph of Gen Yeager from this article is
>> incorrect.
>> "The first man to break the sound barrier - Brigadier General Charles
>> E "Chuck" Yeager, USAF."
>>
>> In fact, Chuck Yeager was the first man to beak the speed of sound in
>> LEVEL FLIGHT.
>> His flight in the X1 at Edwards followed by a week the flight of the
>> first man to actually break the sound barrier. That man was George
>> Welch. The aircraft was the North American F86 prototype.
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> And there are stories of pilots during WWII doing it in powered dives. But
> the X1 was the first to do it with only the power it's engines were
> producing.

....under monitored conditions (ICAO?).

In article >,
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> "Bob Fry" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>> "DH" == Dudley Henriques > writes:
> > DH> it's proper place
> >
> > "*its* proper place" dammit. There are only two spellings:
> >
> > its -- possesive
> > it's -- contraction of it is
>
>
> I'll have to admit I wasn't an English major by a long shot, but isn't the
> word "possessive" spelled with two s's and not one?

Actually, "possessive" is spelled with *four* s's. Count 'em.

;-)

rg

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Such as?
>>
>
> Mach number.

Determined how?

Bob Fry wrote:
>>>>>> "DH" == Dudley Henriques > writes:
> DH> it's proper place
>
> "*its* proper place" dammit. There are only two spellings:
>
> its -- possesive
> it's -- contraction of it is
>

Pretty testy for a guy who can't himself spell as indicated above - twice.

Matt

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "Bob Fry" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>>>>> "DH" == Dudley Henriques > writes:
>> DH> it's proper place
>>
>> "*its* proper place" dammit. There are only two spellings:
>>
>> its -- possesive
>> it's -- contraction of it is
>
>
> I'll have to admit I wasn't an English major by a long shot, but isn't the
> word "possessive" spelled with two s's and not one?

Yes, that is one of the two misspelling errors he made. :-)

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Determined how?
>

Machmeter.

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>> "Bob Fry" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>>>> "DH" == Dudley Henriques > writes:
>> > DH> it's proper place
>> >
>> > "*its* proper place" dammit. There are only two spellings:
>> >
>> > its -- possesive
>> > it's -- contraction of it is
>>
>>
>> I'll have to admit I wasn't an English major by a long shot, but isn't
>> the
>> word "possessive" spelled with two s's and not one?
>
> Actually, "possessive" is spelled with *four* s's. Count 'em.
>
> ;-)
>
> rg

It's (contraction of it is ) the God's (possessive.......well God can have
anything he wants really) honest truth that there are 4, but you have to
admit, the checkmate was wonderful!!
Dudley Henriques

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Determined how?
>>
>
> Machmeter.

And you know it was well calibrated?

An audible sonic boom has no calibration error and is, by definition,
100% accurate.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Fry wrote:
>>>>>>> "DH" == Dudley Henriques > writes:
>> DH> it's proper place
>>
>> "*its* proper place" dammit. There are only two spellings:
>>
>> its -- possesive
>> it's -- contraction of it is
>>
>
> Pretty testy for a guy who can't himself spell as indicated above - twice.
>
> Matt

Yeah, but the comeback made my day! Ya gotta just LOVE Usenet!!!
Actually the same thing happened to me once in a chess game with a new young
player. He made a horrible move that revealed an unnecessary check he could
have avoided. Without actually studying the move, I rushed my Queen in and
called check. To make it worse, I used the moment to "lecture" the guy on
looking at the board before making his moves so that this kind of thing
didn't nail him again.
Well, I suddenly realized that it was I who should have been watching the
board. He reached down and quickly took my Queen with the Knight I had
missed seeing while I was busy lecturing him. :-)))
I tried never again to let myself get nailed like that by stepping in
uninvited and for no good reason lecturing someone on something I could and
should have passed on and remained looking like a genius :-))
Dudley Henriques

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> And you know it was well calibrated?
>

Yup.

> I'll have to admit I wasn't an English major by a long shot, but isn't the
> word "possessive" spelled with two s's and not one?

No. It's spelled with four esses.

I take it you know that s's is not the plural of "ess". :)

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> I'll have to admit I wasn't an English major by a long shot, but isn't
>> the word "possessive" spelled with two s's and not one?
>
> No. It's spelled with four esses.
>
> I take it you know that s's is not the plural of "ess". :)
>
> Jose

Are you addressing someone who was involved with single engine fighters or
smart people here :-)
DH

> Are you addressing someone who was involved with single engine fighters or
> smart people here :-)

I'm not sure. Do smart people go fly airplanes where people shoot at
them? :)

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> Are you addressing someone who was involved with single engine fighters
>> or smart people here :-)
>
> I'm not sure. Do smart people go fly airplanes where people shoot at
> them? :)

Well...there are old pilots...and there are bold pilots. Contrary to popular
belief, it is possible to be both. In fact, in the fighter business, to be
good at it, you actually have to be both.
The secret however, to reaching the "old" end of the equation, is to be
smart......REAL smart!!!
:-))
DH

> The secret however, to reaching the "old" end of the equation, is to be
> smart......REAL smart!!!

Isn't that another way of spelling "lucky"? :)

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
> Isn't that another way of spelling "lucky"? :)
>
> Jose

Quite possibly, but I believe we make our own luck, and if we're smart, we
make it good luck!
Crash Lander
--
http://straightandlevel1973.spaces.live.com/
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!

"Jose" > wrote in message
et...
>> The secret however, to reaching the "old" end of the equation, is to be
>> smart......REAL smart!!!
>
> Isn't that another way of spelling "lucky"? :)

Can't speak for the guys getting shot at, but in my end of the business
(display flying in fighter planes) we did all we could to take luck out of
the equation.

There is of course, always the element involving the unknown factor, but
those of us who retired old and are now on Usenet enjoying dialog with our
peers instead of ending up at the bottom of a six foot hole in the ground
learned the first day on the job never to rely on "luck".
Vince Lombardi was an inspiration to me as a pilot and I based much of my
career in aviation as a pilot on his philosophy. In teaching people to fly
airplanes, I always taught from the Lombardi point of view.
"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection, we can catch
excellence"
On the issue of "luck"; Another coach, Darrel Royal put it nicely for all
pilots doing airshow demonstration work when he said,
"Luck happens when opportunity meets preparation: :-))))
Dudley Henriques

> Can't speak for the guys getting shot at

Well, gee. That was the definition of "smart". Flying where you don't
get shot at. :)

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> Can't speak for the guys getting shot at
>
> Well, gee. That was the definition of "smart". Flying where you don't
> get shot at. :)
>
> Jose

I'll go for that. Sounds smart to me!!
:-))
DH

Dudley

Some additional comments.

I took a P-40N above 25K and rolled over in a full throttle dive and
ran the air speed up as far as I could. Never came close to Mach One
and bird didn't come unglued either (thank God). Oh to be so young and
inicient again :o)

Never ran the P-51D/K over 505 MPH (red line). Had a number of friends
from ETO who said they ran the A/S well over red line in a dive when
being chased by a 109. The 109 was supposed to have a weak tail and
would come unglued in a very high airspeed dive. The P-51 terminal
velocity dive tactic was an escape maneuver.

The Jug in a terminal velocity dive tended to tuck. If you cut power
it tucked harder. To recover you had to keep a high power setting and
wait until you got to a lower altitude when you could recover.

The P-38 ended up getting some dive boards so it may have gotten a
little closer to Mach One than the rest of the WWII fighters????

All I remember from that era.

Big John
***************************************

On Thu, 24 May 2007 16:40:16 -0400, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>> Funny story:
>>>> http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1971War/ArunPrakash.html
>>>>
>>>
>>> Although Yeager is without question one of the finest sticks the
>>> United States military has ever turned out, and he is entitled to
>>> many accolades involving his fine career, the following statement
>>> accompanying the photograph of Gen Yeager from this article is
>>> incorrect.
>>> "The first man to break the sound barrier - Brigadier General Charles
>>> E "Chuck" Yeager, USAF."
>>>
>>> In fact, Chuck Yeager was the first man to beak the speed of sound in
>>> LEVEL FLIGHT.
>>> His flight in the X1 at Edwards followed by a week the flight of the
>>> first man to actually break the sound barrier. That man was George
>>> Welch. The aircraft was the North American F86 prototype.
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> And there are stories of pilots during WWII doing it in powered dives. But
>> the X1 was the first to do it with only the power it's engines were
>> producing.
>
>Actually, no prop fighter can exceed mach 1, as a shock wave builds on the
>propeller disc and the prop itself will prevent supersonic airflow. The tips
>however can easily go supersonic and can easily cause catastrophic failure
>at the prop hub.
>I had a friend who experimented deeply into the transonic range with prop
>fighters while a test pilot for Curtis Wright. Using a P47 Thunderbolt and
>many different propeller combinations, Herb Fisher never actually got the
>Jug through the barrier.
>Another friend, Erik Shilling of the Flying Tigers, lost a good friend when
>the friend was playing around with a P40 in China. In a deep dive over the
>field, the prop was heard to go supersonic just before it tore the P40 apart
>in the air.
>Tony Levier from Lockheed did many deep dives in the P38 dealing with mach
>tuck and never put the Lightning through the barrier. The Brits at Boscombe
>Down after the war worked with Spitfires in high mach dives with no success
>there either.
>On the German side, one ME-262 driver was absolutely certain he had gone
>mach 1 in a dive, but later tests proved he was dealing with the lag in his
>pitot static system as that affected his airspeed readout. The 262 due to
>design couldn't break mach 1 anyway which later tests at Wright Pat proved
>out without question.
>I personally have a P51 out to about .70 mach in a dive and I can tell you
>it was one scary experience :-))
>George Welch did it the week before Yeager while on a test flight in the
>Sabre prototype.
>Through the years of my own career, I either knew or met at least a half
>dozed people who were at Pancho's bar eating lunch the day Welch went
>through. The boom knocked all the pictures off the walls at Pancho's. The
>story goes she wasn't all that happy about it either as she liked Yeager and
>knew of the rivalry to be the first. But that's another story :-))
>Dudley Henriques
>

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> And you know it was well calibrated?
>>
>
> Yup.
>
>
>

You did it personally? Wow, I didn't realize you were that old. Even
the best calibrated instrument is as accurate as the underlying natural
phenomenon. A sonic boom is absolute confirmation of hitting the speed
of sound. An instrument is at best a close approximation.

Matt

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> et...
>>> The secret however, to reaching the "old" end of the equation, is to be
>>> smart......REAL smart!!!
>> Isn't that another way of spelling "lucky"? :)
>
> Can't speak for the guys getting shot at, but in my end of the business
> (display flying in fighter planes) we did all we could to take luck out of
> the equation.
>
> There is of course, always the element involving the unknown factor, but
> those of us who retired old and are now on Usenet enjoying dialog with our
> peers instead of ending up at the bottom of a six foot hole in the ground
> learned the first day on the job never to rely on "luck".
> Vince Lombardi was an inspiration to me as a pilot and I based much of my
> career in aviation as a pilot on his philosophy. In teaching people to fly
> airplanes, I always taught from the Lombardi point of view.
> "Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection, we can catch
> excellence"
> On the issue of "luck"; Another coach, Darrel Royal put it nicely for all
> pilots doing airshow demonstration work when he said,
> "Luck happens when opportunity meets preparation: :-))))

No, that is the definition of success, not luck! :-)

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> "Bob Fry" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>>>>> "DH" == Dudley Henriques > writes:
>>> DH> it's proper place
>>>
>>> "*its* proper place" dammit. There are only two spellings:
>>>
>>> its -- possesive
>>> it's -- contraction of it is
>>
>>
>> I'll have to admit I wasn't an English major by a long shot, but
>> isn't the word "possessive" spelled with two s's and not one?
>
> Yes, that is one of the two misspelling errors he made. :-)
>
> Matt

damn it your right

































you're

Let's see who flames me after not scrolling down this far.

Hi John;
see inserts;


"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley
>
> Some additional comments.
>
> I took a P-40N above 25K and rolled over in a full throttle dive and
> ran the air speed up as far as I could. Never came close to Mach One
> and bird didn't come unglued either (thank God). Oh to be so young and
> inicient again :o)

Do you happen to remember on that dive if you had to retard throttle on the
way down to prevent overspeed? What happened to Erik Shilling's buddy (Pete
Adkinson) in China most Erik told me Adkinson was diving the P40 over the
field to "wake everyone up" Everyone on the field heard a high pitched
scream from the airplane just before it came apart in the air. This would
have been the tips overspeeding well past mach one. Erik was involved in the
accident investigation team reporting to Chennault on what probably
happened. The governor and prop were still in one piece when they hit the
ground which led Erik to conclude that governor failure with prop overspeed
might not have been the cause. He concluded that some cowling fasteners
(Duez) might have come off allowing high speed air into the engine
compartment causing intense forces. Interesting story. I've never actually
been convinced it wasn't a prop overspeed but of course I wasn't there.




>
> Never ran the P-51D/K over 505 MPH (red line). Had a number of friends
> from ETO who said they ran the A/S well over red line in a dive when
> being chased by a 109. The 109 was supposed to have a weak tail and
> would come unglued in a very high airspeed dive. The P-51 terminal
> velocity dive tactic was an escape maneuver.

My high speed dive was the result of an O2 failure at high altitude during a
ferry flight. I woke up with the stick walking all over the cockpit and deep
into compressibility. The governor had reached it's limit and we figured if
I hadn't come around to realizing what was happening, it could easily have
turned out differently than it did :-)
>
> The Jug in a terminal velocity dive tended to tuck. If you cut power
> it tucked harder. To recover you had to keep a high power setting and
> wait until you got to a lower altitude when you could recover.

Nothing outdives a Republic "Brick" :-))
>
> The P-38 ended up getting some dive boards so it may have gotten a
> little closer to Mach One than the rest of the WWII fighters????

The L solved a lot of issues for the 38 if I remember. Hope you finally got
to fly one.

Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nothing outdives a Republic "Brick" :-))
>>
>> The P-38 ended up getting some dive boards so it may have gotten a
>> little closer to Mach One than the rest of the WWII fighters????
>
> The L solved a lot of issues for the 38 if I remember. Hope you finally
> got to fly one.
>
Isn't it amazing: modern fighters go twice as fast straigt UP as WW2
fighters did going straight DOWN.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> I'll have to admit I wasn't an English major by a long shot, but isn't
>> the word "possessive" spelled with two s's and not one?
>
> No. It's spelled with four esses.
>
> I take it you know that s's is not the plural of "ess". :)

The pluralization of a single letter is the only context in which an
apostrophe is appropriate to form the plural.

For instance: CDs, ATVs, Oakland A's. ABCs, A's, B's and C's.

Source: AP Stylebook and Libel Manual, OSU Department of Journalism.

-c

> The pluralization of a single letter is the only context in which an
> apostrophe is appropriate to form the plural.
>
> For instance: CDs, ATVs, Oakland A's. ABCs, A's, B's and C's.
>
> Source: AP Stylebook and Libel Manual, OSU Department of Journalism.

And the New York Times stylebook says that acronym plurals should be
spelled with an apostrophe: one DVD, three DVD's.

That doesn't make it right.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
>> The pluralization of a single letter is the only context in which an
>> apostrophe is appropriate to form the plural.
>>
>> For instance: CDs, ATVs, Oakland A's. ABCs, A's, B's and C's.
>>
>> Source: AP Stylebook and Libel Manual, OSU Department of Journalism.
>
> And the New York Times stylebook says that acronym plurals should be
> spelled with an apostrophe: one DVD, three DVD's.
>
> That doesn't make it right.
>

Language is nothing but a set of agreed upon rules. The way the rules get
changed is by those that carry a lot of weight has far as language is
concerned change them. The AP and NYT fit this description.

There is no law that says you cant spell dog, C A T. Though there will be a
lot of people who don't know what you are taking about.

> Language is nothing but a set of agreed upon rules.

Well, I didnt agree to those rule's. Let me see the S'heriff. :)

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> You did it personally?

Nope.


>
> Wow, I didn't realize you were that old. Even the best calibrated
> instrument is as accurate as the underlying natural phenomenon. A sonic
> boom is absolute confirmation of hitting the speed of sound. An
> instrument is at best a close approximation.
>

Instrumentation is reliable, you just don't know when to quit.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You did it personally?
>
> Nope.
>
>
>> Wow, I didn't realize you were that old. Even the best calibrated
>> instrument is as accurate as the underlying natural phenomenon. A sonic
>> boom is absolute confirmation of hitting the speed of sound. An
>> instrument is at best a close approximation.
>>
>
> Instrumentation is reliable, you just don't know when to quit.

I spent the first 10 years of my career as a control systems engineer
and am quite familiar with instrumentation. Instrumentation is not
nearly as reliable or precise as a fundamental physical phenomenon.

I'll take a sonic boom over a mach meter reading any day of the week for
accuracy.

Matt

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> "Bob Fry" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> "DH" == Dudley Henriques > writes:
>>>> DH> it's proper place
>>>>
>>>> "*its* proper place" dammit. There are only two spellings:
>>>>
>>>> its -- possesive
>>>> it's -- contraction of it is
>>>
>>> I'll have to admit I wasn't an English major by a long shot, but
>>> isn't the word "possessive" spelled with two s's and not one?
>> Yes, that is one of the two misspelling errors he made. :-)
>>
>> Matt
>
> damn it your right
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> you're
>
> Let's see who flames me after not scrolling down this far.
>
>

Not I!

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> I spent the first 10 years of my career as a control systems engineer and
> am quite familiar with instrumentation. Instrumentation is not nearly as
> reliable or precise as a fundamental physical phenomenon.
>
> I'll take a sonic boom over a mach meter reading any day of the week for
> accuracy.
>

Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

>> I spent the first 10 years of my career as a control systems engineer and
>> am quite familiar with instrumentation. Instrumentation is not nearly as
>> reliable or precise as a fundamental physical phenomenon.
>>
>> I'll take a sonic boom over a mach meter reading any day of the week for
>> accuracy.
>>
>
> Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

Fooling anyone about what? Instruments can lie; sonic booms cannot.

--
Dan

"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
- Chief Inspector Dreyfus

Does anyone know if the F-86 routinely went supersonic in a dive while
operational.

Danny Deger

snip

"Danny Deger" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone know if the F-86 routinely went supersonic in a dive while
> operational.
>
> Danny Deger
>
> snip

Yes. It was no big deal for the 86 in a dive. The guys did however have to
watch where they did it.
The changeover to the flying tail from the hinged elevator made the shock
transition a lot smoother.
Dudley Henriques

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I spent the first 10 years of my career as a control systems engineer and
>> am quite familiar with instrumentation. Instrumentation is not nearly as
>> reliable or precise as a fundamental physical phenomenon.
>>
>> I'll take a sonic boom over a mach meter reading any day of the week for
>> accuracy.
>>
>
> Do you really think you're fooling anyone?
>
>

Wasn't trying to. Do you think you are fooling anyone to think than an
instrument to measure the speed of sound is more accurate than the
phenomenon itself? Amazing...

Did you ever wonder why ice baths are used to calibrate temperature
instruments? Or why triple points and similar are used for various
calibration purposes?

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
>>> I spent the first 10 years of my career as a control systems engineer and
>>> am quite familiar with instrumentation. Instrumentation is not nearly as
>>> reliable or precise as a fundamental physical phenomenon.
>>>
>>> I'll take a sonic boom over a mach meter reading any day of the week for
>>> accuracy.
>>>
>> Do you really think you're fooling anyone?
>
> Fooling anyone about what? Instruments can lie; sonic booms cannot.
>

Welch probably just pushed the button on his artificial sonic boom
generator. Ha, ha, ha...


Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wasn't trying to.

Then you write without purpose.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Wasn't trying to.
>
> Then you write without purpose.
>
>

I agree. Writing to you is indeed writing without purpose.

On Fri, 25 May 2007 14:03:18 -0400, in rec.aviation.piloting, Jose
> wrote:

>> Language is nothing but a set of agreed upon rules.
>
>Well, I didnt agree to those rule's. Let me see the S'heriff. :)

We currently appear to be San's S'heriff. That much i's plain.

-Scott

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> I agree. Writing to you is indeed writing without purpose.
>

But you just can't resist.

(Scott) wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 14:03:18 -0400, in rec.aviation.piloting, Jose
> > wrote:
>
>>> Language is nothing but a set of agreed upon rules.
>>
>>Well, I didnt agree to those rule's. Let me see the S'heriff. :)
>
> We currently appear to be San's S'heriff. That much i's plain.

Groan.

:-)