Rob wrote:

Second, regarding the Me-262 and Mach 1 there is absolutely no
way for the 1946 US Flight Manual to mention the Me-262 being able to
break Mach 1 in a critical dive based solely on captured German wind
tunnel data as it took a full 11 years to evaluate all that
information.

Errr, since we were involved in high speed flight experiments at the time that
the German data was captured, does it not make a wee bit o sense that this data
would be culled through, first? The more esoteric stuff was likely
back-shelved for later in the evaluation period, but anything that the US
thought it could use RIGHT then was destributed to various aviation companies
for their use, RIGHT then. We captured the wind tunnels while they were in
use, and we actually kept the German staffs at the sites, showing us what they
were working on when the bell rang. THAT info was not sat upon for 11 years -
it was taken directly to Wright Pat for immediate evaluation, as were the jets
themselves. Or are you saying that we evaluated the Mach characteristics of
the slave-built jets without bothering to check what the German engineers had
to say about them?! Rob, that's ludicrous.

At the time of printing in 1946 Wright Patterson held
thousands of tons captured aviation documents.

But...sadly... not a bit of it claimed the 262 HAD gone supersonic - you just
think it does, because of a single paragraph in a book that, SURPRISE, used a
bunch of those supposedly unread German documents of yours for sources. Which
is it - did the Americans not read the Mach 1 research for years after the war,
or not??

Sorry, they got that
info from the Germans directly or someone in the US broke the barrier
in a captured 262.

"...got that info from the Germans directly..."

I believe that's what I said earlier, Rob - that we obtained HG III and other
wind tunnel data, combined it with pilot's anecdotal compression stories, and
the result was a single notation in the postwar pilot's manual. Makes a lot
more sense than claiming an aircraft with thick wings, flat intakes, and a
rounded off nose somehow punched through the barrier, and then failed to report
it for 60 years.

You still ignore the problem that NO other Me 262 pilot (cept Mutke), either
Luftwaffe or postwar, made any sort of a similar claim. Mutke's postwar
revelation ignores (as you do) the improbable nature of Mach 1 flight in an
aircraft without proper mach-capable wings or engine intakes. Mutke is laughed
down by both his friends and detractors - he is known as a "crazy
gynochologist" and NOT as a test pilot, which he never was. His aircraft was
not instrumented to provide accurate airspeed data and his statements in
private even cast doubt on his on-line claims (I printed the on-line story, and
sent it to him for his signature - he carefully lined out one of the speed
figures and wrote in a smaller, more believable number). All things
considered, he is not a credible source for a Mach 1 claim - nor would I accept
as fact any such story that surfaced first, decades after the event. Mutke
kept his "event" a secret - so good, in fact, that his unit filed no loss or
damage report to match the supposedly thrashed Me 262 that he claims to have
piloted to Mach 1 and back. "White 9", the only candidate put forth as his
"Mach 1 aircraft" somehow suffered incredible damage due to his failure to
monitor his speed and disregard of his direct instructions from Heinz Bär
immediately prior to launch, so we already know something of Mutke's piloting
skills. His Mach 1 flight was an "accident" according to him - but an accident
that caused heavy damage to his "turbo". Being the kind of asshole that I am,
I went to the JG 7 loss records, which are intact, btw, and no such loss or
damage is reported on the date he claims. So, lets ignore Mutke's baseless
claims and get back to the facts - there were no wartime claims of a Mach 1
event in Germany, although there was plenty of high speed wind tunnel
experimentation in the final year. So we are left with your theory that
requires a US or Brit postwar test pilot that supposedly "did the deed" - but
none did, or claimed they did, in the last six decades. Whatever gag order you
may think they are under, these pilots are now elder gents that take orders
from no one - the British test pilots are emphatic that Mach 1 was not possible
in the Nazi jet, and further, they link the 'tuck under' and other negative
aerodynamic high speed tendancies as reasons why it could never exceed .88.

On the US side, a friend of mine has three shelves of binders, filled with
reams of Wright Patterson Me 262 test documents and pilot reports - Chuck has
also known the principal test pilots for years and has many of their original
notes and documents. Any Mach 1 data in there? Damn the mundanity, no. 30+
binders full of every sort of high speed flight test or evaluation and none of
it agrees with you.

Again, a Mach 1 event requires a suitable aircraft, a pilot, a date, and a
location. Documentation from the time of the event is also critical - to keep
from having arguments 60 years after the event.

You can't provide any one of those five required items and instead cling to a
single paragraph that was prepared by engineers and technical writers that
definitely had access to German wind tunnel data, regardless of your rather
biased claims.

Rob, I really am fascinated with the Me 262 - but years of familiarity with the
beast do not cloud my vision, to give it supernatural powers or abilities that
it clearly lacked.

You never have contacted Mutke, have you...? Or done any original research on
this issue? You are starting to sound a bit shrill - ignoring the bits you
can't explain and staying "on message", repeating the same claim over and over,
with the same cryptic proof from that one pilot's handbook -- which mentions
the characteristics of the Me 262 approaching compressibility, NOT a true
transonic event. The engineers of the day were aware that the two types of
event were different, but didn't have anything concrete in their hands to judge
which type of event had been reported by the early jet pilots.

Whitehead's claims were that he had a 10 hp engine to drive the wheels of
his aircraft on land. That engine was claimed to weigh 22 pounds. Sorry,
not doable in 1901. The second engine was claimed to produce 20 hp at a
weight of 35 pounds. Again, not doable in 1901. If the man had such
engines, the world would have beaten a path to his door. They didn't,
because those engines didn't exist. Sure, he may have had engines, but not
engines with those characteristics. Also, if we assume the impossible,
that
the engines were real, have you seen the pictures of his aircraft?
Particularly the propellers? I don't think anyone since Alberto
Santos-Dumont has used that design. It isn't efficient, and with the low
HP
engines which might have been available, high prop efficiency is critical
if
you want to fly.

Agree. The props on his craft would have wasted practically all of the HP the
magic engine produced.

Again, Whitehead's claims don't pan-out.

Yet the aircraft FLEW in 1901. The missing design of his engine does
not in any way discredit the flight. Because YOU can't figure it out.

A 'drawing' doesn't stand up very well to scrutiny when the Wrights produced a
*photo*, to go along with their achievement. Your desire to take people's word
for everything, in the absence of direct physical evidence, is not good for
your case, Rob - human observers aren't known for their accuracy when facing a
totally unfamiliar event, such as witnessing the inauguaral human flight.

Nice joke but you might want to reconsider since German disc aircraft
are still classified and the largest of those was reputed to have gone
several thousands of miles per hour in the '40s... long before the
SR-71.

Care to post the telemetry data or something else that can be checked..?

Which is higher - the drag coefficient of a disk, or a dart?

(Please ignore any questions that don't fit your preconcieved ideas.)

BTW, the X-15 was faster than the SR-71 and bears a rather
strong resemblence to the projected manned V-2

That's more than a stretch, that's grabbing at straws. Other than the fact
that they are rocket powered and had an occupant, the manned V-2 and the X-15
have very little in common. Not launched the same, controlled the same; one is
a vertically launched two-stage rocket, the other is a small, air-dropped
endo-atmospheric test aircraft. The X-15 used nose reaction motors to adjust
its trajectory - something the manned V-2 seems to lack. Only you could see a
connection here, Rob! LOL

v/r
Gordon