A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

F-86 and sound barrier



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 22nd 03, 01:53 PM
John Bailey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:16:00 -0500, VH wrote:

I was watching the Discovery Channel program comparing the
F-86 and Mig-15 and heard that the F-86 can break the sound
barrier. I know that this has been claimed many time before
but is that the official position of the US Air Force? Is
Yeager still officially the first man to break the sound
barrier?


Breaking Mach 1 was a standard flight in the curriculum for Perrin
AFB's advanced flight training school for F86D interceptor pilots.
You went up to max alititude, nosed over into a full vertical dive
with full throttle and watched the Mach needle hit 1 before reducing
power and starting the pullout. This was in 1957. No biggie, except
the ego trip of claiming membership in the Machbuster's Club.



John Bailey
http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/mailto.html
  #2  
Old September 22nd 03, 05:55 PM
robert arndt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(John Bailey) wrote in message ...
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:16:00 -0500, VH wrote:

I was watching the Discovery Channel program comparing the
F-86 and Mig-15 and heard that the F-86 can break the sound
barrier. I know that this has been claimed many time before
but is that the official position of the US Air Force? Is
Yeager still officially the first man to break the sound
barrier?



The USAF likes to cover up everything and they are very good at it.
But answering your question- an emphatic "No" will suffice.
It was the Luftwaffe that broke Mach 1 back in the closing days of
WW2. Check out the Wright Patterson Official Manual on Flying the
Me-262 (circa 1946). It says that the Me-262 can break the sound
barrier in a shallow dive. So either one of the captured 262s flown by
a US pilot broke Mach 1 or the information came from German sources in
1945. Anyway, the official manual precedes Yeager's official flight-
fact.
As a matter of fact, in the US, according to various sources Yeager
was actually the 4th man to break Mach 1.
You might want to look into Project Blue Book also, another US
document. In the preface there is mention that the only machines
capable of flight like the UFOs being investigated at the time were "
certain developments of the Third Reich in the closing months of the
war". Certainly they are NOT comparing a superagile, gravity defying
UFO disc with a Me-262. It is obvious that Germany pioneered some
revolutionary aircraft at the close of the war and that what the US
recovered in material and/or documents (also from Wright Patterson)
has led throughout 6 decades to the strange enigmatic discs and black
triangles flying today. That's why German disc aircraft information
remains highly classified and wont be declassified until 2020- a full
75 years after WW2.
What does that tell you about how honest the USAF is and how
historically accurate aviation history is?

Rob
  #4  
Old September 22nd 03, 06:42 PM
Gordon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It was the Luftwaffe that broke Mach 1 back in the closing days of
WW2.


Strange, no one in the Luftwaffe claimed it - unless you count everyone's
favorite oddball, Dr. Mutke - who also claims that the Me 262 he defected in is
actually *his* personal property!

Check out the Wright Patterson Official Manual on Flying the
Me-262 (circa 1946).


Have it. It has one paragraph that is open to the interpretation you prefer -
but they also had plenty of compressibility reports, tuck under events, and
other bits that told them something was happening at a bit over 1,000 kph.
Still, they never claimed to have broken Mach 1. Wind tunnel experiments and
pilot anecdotes show the airframe, more specifically, the engine nacelles and
wings, are incapable of exceeding .84. But if a single paragraph is enough to
convince you of a non-event, not much I can say that would change your mind.
Still, I think it speaks volumes that no one in Germany, officially or
unofficially, claimed to have exceeded Mach 1, until fifty years after the
"event". I accept that the postwar Pilot's Manual has a problematic mention of
transonic flight - that doesn't suggest how, when, or where such an event could
have, or did, occur. Even Messerschmitt made no such claim. My opinion, worth
as much as yours, is that engineers explained the many high speed crashes and
near-fatal events associated with compressibility as transonic events - by
1945-46, most test pilots and aeronautical engineers knew that the 'barrier'
was there and its no stretch to assume crashes, and near crashes, during very
high speed flight, were the result of teasing the barrier. Re-read the
paragraph with that info in mind, and its not so damning.

Or, do it my way and interview countless Me 262 pilots from fighter,
nightfighter, bomber, and test units, add in US and British test pilots, and
see if even ONE suggests that the Me 262 could power itself to Mach 1. It
can't, and nothing you can say will change that blunt-nose Jumo OO4B into a
transonic-capable engine. No air = no thrust = no possible transonic event,
unless you believe you can achieve it in a glider.

It says that the Me-262 can break the sound
barrier in a shallow dive. So either one of the captured 262s flown by
a US pilot broke Mach 1 or the information came from German sources in
1945.


....and German sources used wind tunnel data, not just pilot reports. Also, you
are leaving out the possibility that the "mystery Mach 1 aviator" was not a
Brit test pilot - who had more flights on captured German jets than we did.
Matters not - of the three RAF test pilots that I have talked to, none suggest
the Me 262 was capable of anything over Mach .84, dive or no dive.

Anyway, the official manual precedes Yeager's official flight-
fact.


That arcane reference mentions no date, circumstance, or method of proving its
single statement. As far as proof, one completely unsubstantiated comment is
rarely adequate to be considered "proof".

This has been gone over in minute detail by the guys at Stormbirds.com as well
as other Me 262 websites and Mutke's claim is not accepted by anyone that flew
with him, or flew the Me 262. His mates laugh at him, literally.


What does that tell you about how honest the USAF is and how
historically accurate aviation history is?


You paint with such a broad brush that its hard to see where to start with
correcting your claims. I'll stick with this one: you cannot show any proof
that an Me 262 broke the speed of sound, beyond that single note in a 60 year
old book that doesn't give enough information to check the comment in any way.
Tell me which German (or American) pilot took an Me 262 transonic? If you
can't, its just a really neat, but unproven, sea story. That doesn't count as
"historically accurate aviation history" either, does it?

Gordon
  #5  
Old September 22nd 03, 06:57 PM
Gordon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Or, do it my way and interview countless Me 262 pilots from fighter,
nightfighter, bomber, and test units, add in US and British test pilots, and
see if even ONE suggests that the Me 262 could power itself to Mach 1.


Schuck, Busch, Czypionka, Becker, Rudorffer, Neppach, Hans-E Bob, several
others, plus several others on the German side; all meet comments about Mutke
and Mach 1 with a sigh and a sad shake of their heads.

Here's an idea - take an F-4 to .98, kill the engines, then enter a dive and
tell me if you go transonic. If you can't, then explain to me how an Me 262,
with FLAT engine intakes and no consideration made to provide airflow at Mach
1, could do the feat?

Gordon
  #6  
Old September 22nd 03, 07:37 PM
Ed Majden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Corey C. Jordan"
There's a small problem with this myth. At speeds beyond Mach 0.88, the
Me 262 begins shedding major components, wings and such.

Hell, a CF-100 Mk-1 clunk broke the sound barrier in 1951! I wonder if
the F89 or F94, the CF100 contemporaries could do this?? Anyway, aren't the
Yanks or Russians first at everything! Hollywood claims they are so it must
be true!

Ed


  #7  
Old September 22nd 03, 10:06 PM
av8r
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Hell, a CF-100 Mk-1 clunk broke the sound barrier in 1951! I wonder if
the F89 or F94, the CF100 contemporaries could do this?? Anyway, aren't the
Yanks or Russians first at everything! Hollywood claims they are so it must
be true!

Ed



Hi Ed

You are out by a year and a later version of the aircraft.

Jan Zurakowski became the first person to exceed Mach 1 in a straight
wing aircraft with out the aid of rocket power. He was flying an Avro
Canada CF-100 Mk.4B Canuck (not Clunk as is affectionately known as)
R.C.A.F. serial number 18112.

Standard procedure for a pilot to achieve Mach 1, was to dive the CF-100
straight down from FL 450 at full power. The CF-100 was very marginal
in the supersonic breakthrough. It depended largely on aerodynamic
cleanliness of each individual aircraft whether it would break the sound
barrier. The CF-100 would hardly ever surpass Mach 1.05.

As for the Northrop F-89 Scorpion and Lockheed F-89 Starfire, only the
F-89C Starfire could exceed Mach 1 in a shallow dive.

Cheers...Chris

  #8  
Old September 22nd 03, 11:09 PM
Ed Majden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"av8r"
Jan Zurakowski became the first person to exceed Mach 1 in a straight
wing aircraft with out the aid of rocket power. He was flying an Avro
Canada CF-100 Mk.4B Canuck (not Clunk as is affectionately known as)
R.C.A.F. serial number 18112.


When I was station in Europe (ground crew) we sometimes had F-100's jump
our Canadair F-86's and Mk-4 CF-100's. When the Sabres's started getting
the better of them the F-100's turned tail, cut in their afterburners and
slipped away. When we got the CF-104's the guys loaded the dive brakes up
with toilet paper and they did an un-authorized low level run on one F-100
base. We never saw them again! ;-)
I wonder why???
Ed



  #9  
Old September 23rd 03, 12:48 AM
av8r
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


When I was station in Europe (ground crew) we sometimes had F-100's jump
our Canadair F-86's and Mk-4 CF-100's. When the Sabres's started getting
the better of them the F-100's turned tail, cut in their afterburners and
slipped away. When we got the CF-104's the guys loaded the dive brakes up
with toilet paper and they did an un-authorized low level run on one F-100
base. We never saw them again! ;-)
I wonder why???
Ed


Hi Ed

Ahhhhhh yes, the good old days of the Royal Canadian Air Force's Air
Division. Back when Canada had 12 first rate day and all weather
fighter squadrons split between France and Germany ready to battle the
'Red Menace'. Well at least until Emporer DeGaulle had the gall to
demand total control of the the NATO nukes in France.

I read many stories of R.C.A.F. Sabre Mk. 5's and 6's bouncing U.S.A.F.
Huns all over the European skies. More often than not, the gun camera
footage would show the Hun dead centre in the sites of the gung ho
Canadians. Man them were the days, the likes of which you will never
see again. Par Ardua Ad Astra!

Cheers...Chris

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
what is good sound proofing for interior?!?! Rick Home Built 12 May 13th 04 02:29 AM
Pulse jet active sound attentuation Jay Home Built 32 March 19th 04 05:57 AM
Simpy One of Many Stories of a Time Not So Long Ago Badwater Bill Home Built 40 March 16th 04 06:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.