F-86 and sound barrier

Exceeding M1.0 in either the Sabre or the Dog was no big deal. You
just pointed them straight down from 40+ and didn't fight it if it
wanted to roll around .95(flap rigging, usually).
Question: didn't Edwards get boomed when Welch went supersonic?
Walt BJ

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:24:21 GMT, "Matt Wiser" wrote:


Was this the same George Welch who flew a P-40 out of Halewia, Oahu on
the morning of 7 Dec 41, killing pair of Vals, a Kate and a Zero, before
being a P-38 ace in SWPA? IIRC he was KIFA in a F-100 in the mid 1950s.

Yes, this was the same lunatic. LOL

Welch was credited with 4 kills at Pearl Harbor and his wingman (Taylor)
swears that Welch got another two that crashed out to sea. His wingman shot down
another two and damaged several others. Between them, they accounted for
6 kills, two prabables and several damaged. That's nearly 21% of all Japanese
combat losses at Pearl (as much as 28% if you counted the two probably shot
down).

Later while flying P-39Ds, Welch shot down three more fighters (one sortie)
bringing his score up to seven. After he transferred to the 8th FG flying P-38s,
he added nine more before a life-threatening case of malaria sent him home.

Welch is one of only a handful of American fighter pilots that scored kills in
three different fighter types.

Every time Welch shot down any Japanese aircraft, he got at least 2, and killed
4 on two occasions.

His peers believed that had he not become deathly ill, he would have challenged,
and possibly even outpaced Bong and McGuire in total victories.

As it was, Hap Arnold set up an interview for Welch with North American. Some
believe that this was his way of making up for Welch not getting the CMoH due to
someone in the chain of command disapproving the recommendation because Welch
took off without specific orders. Arnold was incensed with Squadron CO Maj
Gordon H. Austin, but it seems Austin probably approved the recommendation.
Although bounced back to CONUS, Austin was given command of a P-40 outfit that
he took to North Africa where he shot down 3 enemy aircraft while flying more
than 100 combat hours. Later Austin commanded the 319th BG (a B-26 outfit) where
he logged another 115 hours. In 1944 he was transferred stateside where he
served in many posts until he retired as a highly decorated Major General in
1966. If he is still alive, he would be 90 years old.

It's likely that someone in the USAAF command structure at Pearl Harbor gave
Welch the deep six. Who that was is unknown to me.

My regards,

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com

On 23 Sep 2003 05:53:00 GMT, (DunxC) wrote:

By the way, the "damage" was the result of a design fault in the nose gear
extension mechanism, not a result of excessive speed on climbout.

The damage was caused by fast retraction of the nose gear on take-off (because
of the weak cylinder against building airspeed); the solution to that one was
to fit a restrictor in the hydraulic 'up' line. Any other problems were linked
to, but not the cause of, the damage.

The NAA logs are quite detaioled on this.

Duncan

According to Roy Ferrin, the actuator was replaced with one having a
larger diameter piston, and the door linkage was adjusted to close a tad sooner.
I can't see how a flow restrictor in the line will compensate for a lack of
force resulting from inadequate pressure area. If you want more push for a given
hydraulic pressure, you need a larger cylinder.

My regards,

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com

On 23 Sep 2003 07:47:41 -0700, (Walt BJ) wrote:

Exceeding M1.0 in either the Sabre or the Dog was no big deal. You
just pointed them straight down from 40+ and didn't fight it if it
wanted to roll around .95(flap rigging, usually).
Question: didn't Edwards get boomed when Welch went supersonic?
Walt BJ

It certainly did!

Prior to heading back to North American to debrief with the engineers, Welch
telephoned a friend that he had briefed the day before about what to be
listening for. Excitedly, his friend related that they had been nearly blown out
of bed by a terribly loud ba-boom. The time was noted and it corresponded to
George's dive.

Major General Joseph Swing heard the boom and reported it to Stu Symington.
Hundreds of others heard it too. Many wives ran outside looking for the
tell-tale plume of smoke indicating a crash, but there wasn't any smoke to see.

Ask any of the NAA guys (or the Bell crew as well) who were there at the time.
Welch's boom was quite loud, far more so than Yeagers would be (which makes
sense when you consider that Welch was diving towards the base, whereas Yeager
was in level flight at higher altitude).

My regards,

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com

(Corey C. Jordan) wrote:

On 23 Sep 2003 05:53:00 GMT, (DunxC) wrote:

By the way, the "damage" was the result of a design fault in the nose gear
extension mechanism, not a result of excessive speed on climbout.

The damage was caused by fast retraction of the nose gear on take-off (because
of the weak cylinder against building airspeed); the solution to that one was
to fit a restrictor in the hydraulic 'up' line. Any other problems were linked
to, but not the cause of, the damage.

The NAA logs are quite detaioled on this.

Duncan

According to Roy Ferrin, the actuator was replaced with one having a
larger diameter piston, and the door linkage was adjusted to close a tad sooner.
I can't see how a flow restrictor in the line will compensate for a lack of
force resulting from inadequate pressure area. If you want more push for a given
hydraulic pressure, you need a larger cylinder.

My regards,

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)

They likely had to cause the NG to retract fast originally
because as mentioned the cyl was weak and they needed to get the
gear up before the airspeed had built up too far. That's what I
gather from the writeup above. Problem likely was that, although
the restrictor would reduce the speed of the retraction, it seems
reasonable that it would combat the purpose of the fast
retraction. Seems reasonable to fit a more powerful jack as they
did.
--

-Gord.

"Corey C. Jordan" wrote in message
...
On 22 Sep 2003 09:55:54 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

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.

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

But Corey, you lied about Copp, so why would anyone at ram ever believe you
again?

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

But Corey, you lied about Copp, so why would anyone at ram ever believe you
again?

How about me? I don't know Copp from Copralite, but I _know_ that the Me 262
was a subsonic airframe with subsonic engines.

Gordon

"Gordon" wrote in message
...

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

But Corey, you lied about Copp, so why would anyone at ram ever believe
you
again?

How about me? I don't know Copp from Copralite, but I _know_ that the Me
262
was a subsonic airframe with subsonic engines.

Hey, how are you doing Gordon. I don't doubt what you know, I just see no
purpose to parrots.

Hey, how are you doing Gordon.

Doing better every day - thanks for asking.

I don't doubt what you know, I just see no
purpose to parrots.

Sorry, I just get upset when I see folks posting chaff about one of the very
few subjects that I feel qualified to comment upon. I don't know what Rob's
garage looks like, but mine is packed chest high with file boxes from BAMA and
NARA, loaded with little but Me 262 documents. I know Rob loves his subject,
but I wish he'd take the extra step of trying to verify what he posts, instead
of saying, "I read it in ONE book, so its carved in stone." I've yet to see
him respond to any of the specific points I raise, concerning the engine
nacelle shape, pilot names, etc., but I guess I am ****ing him off by simply
not agreeing that the 262 is somehow capable of supersonic flight. It isn't,
and he has no ability to prove it was.

You want to know something odd? That pilot's manual, with its subtle reference
to supersonic characteristics, is one of the first books I ever owned (I had
the older Aero publications version). That paragraph really got me going and
because of it, I asked every jet pilot I could find if it were possible. Its
one of the questions that sent me off on 20+ years of researching the Me 262.
Strange to see that old book, and its single reference, leading someone else
down a blind corridor. The real problem is that he will not have the benefit
of first hand information, from people who were there, to draw from to help him
form an informed opinion on the matter.

Gordon

"Gordon" wrote in message
...

Hey, how are you doing Gordon.

Doing better every day - thanks for asking.

I don't doubt what you know, I just see no
purpose to parrots.

Sorry, I just get upset when I see folks posting chaff about one of the
very
few subjects that I feel qualified to comment upon.

Well ya' know, I have had my fill of kook trolls. I know I was probably as
guilty as anyone for supporting the Shafer kook troll, but at some point it
gets a little rediculess. I mean, I know Bon-Myer and Myer, they once asked
to be my friends. Lately though, we still have Willshaw quoting the Shafer
kook troll on grape vines; and at the same time denying a big part of San
Juaquin Valley history.