Me-262, NOT Bell X-1 Broke SB First

http://mach1.luftarchiv.de/weisse_9.htm

"White 9" deserves the credit, not "Glamorous Glennis"!

Rob

(robert arndt) wrote:

http://mach1.luftarchiv.de/weisse_9.htm

"White 9" deserves the credit, not "Glamorous Glennis"!

When you break a speed record, one of the requirements is that you do it
in *level flight*.

Putting a plane into a 40 degree dive kinda takes it out of the running,
especially since some American *prop* planes had probably done it before
1945. From reports, P-38 Lightnings had entered compressibility as far
back as 1941, and some had actually come out of it (not the safest
flight regime, back then).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...

When you break a speed record, one of the requirements is that you do it
in *level flight*.


But no such requirement existed for the first supersonic flight.



Putting a plane into a 40 degree dive kinda takes it out of the running,
especially since some American *prop* planes had probably done it before
1945. From reports, P-38 Lightnings had entered compressibility as far
back as 1941, and some had actually come out of it (not the safest
flight regime, back then).


No American prop plane ever exceeded the speed of sound. No German jet or
rocket fighter ever exceeded the speed of sound. If Yeager was not the
first to exceed the speed of sound, the only other possibility is that
George Welch in the XP-86 was the first.

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...

When you break a speed record, one of the requirements is that you do it
in *level flight*.

But no such requirement existed for the first supersonic flight.

All of the other speed records set up until that time were in horizontal
flight.

No American prop plane ever exceeded the speed of sound. No German jet or
rocket fighter ever exceeded the speed of sound. If Yeager was not the
first to exceed the speed of sound, the only other possibility is that
George Welch in the XP-86 was the first.

We lost more than one fighter from compressibility, and it's quite
possible that one or more made it "through" Mach 1 and back.

But since none of these were subjected to any sort of external
measurement (the Me-262 in the original post certainly wasn't), it's not
possible to tell for sure.

Which is why the X-1 was the first.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

We lost more than one fighter from compressibility, and it's quite
possible that one or more made it "through" Mach 1 and back.

Sorry. This is wrong. It is physically impossible for a prop driven aircraft
to exceed mach one. Trust me on this. I've had a Mustang out all the way to
..75. The circumstances that day were such that had the airplane been
capable, it would have made it through. It didn't!!
The prop drag curve on the props of the era becomes insurmountable. In my
case, a Hamilton Standard 24D50 on the 51.
The RAF tried every which way but backwards to put a Spit through at
Boscombe Down after the war. They failed...and they had some real
heavyweights flying these airplanes too.
Herb Fisher did extensive high mach dive tests in a modified Jug that used
several highly experimental semitar shaped propellers. Even Herb couldn't
make it through. Trust me again...I knew him well!!
The simple truth about props is that the drag rise in compressibility can't
be overcome by thrust and velocity. It's a no win situation. It can't be
done.
Furthermore, the 262 didn't make it through either. It's aerodynamic shape
coupled with it's ability to create the thrust required didn't equate. There
was no way the 262 would have been able to get high enough and accelerate
fast enough in real time within the altitude restraints it could create. In
other words, for the specific design of the 262, there simply wasn't enough
sky up there to get it done. This is common knowledge in the flight test
community. Even if it had the air available, the 262's drag index curve
would never have allowed a total mach one airflow.
George Welch was probably the first through mach one. I realize this damn
argument will go on forever, but Welch again is the general consensus of the
flight test community......and Yeager is very much a member of this
community :-)))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI Retired
For personal e-mail, use
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
(replacezwithe)

Actually, all this is should be pretty easy to prove if one has access to
virtual wind tunnels. All one has to do to prove an aircraft can not excede
mach 1 is to do tests on the suspected limiting factor. In the case of the
Me262 a 2 dimensional flow model of the wing or engine inlet should suffice.
Once you have determined a limiting factor it makes no difference if the rest
of the aircraft could have done it.

While such tests are not the same as real tests does anyone have an Me262 they
care to sacrifice?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 00:53:23 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
wrote:

Furthermore, the 262 didn't make it through either. It's aerodynamic shape
coupled with it's ability to create the thrust required didn't equate. There
was no way the 262 would have been able to get high enough and accelerate
fast enough in real time within the altitude restraints it could create. In
other words, for the specific design of the 262, there simply wasn't enough
sky up there to get it done. This is common knowledge in the flight test
community. Even if it had the air available, the 262's drag index curve
would never have allowed a total mach one airflow.

Well, ignoring the altitude limitation, I'm not sure if aerodynamics
has to matter. If a man without an airplane can fall from a balloon
fast enough to get supersonic, it seems that an airplane should do the
same. You know, going downhill with the wind at its back?

Other than this being highly unrealistic and totally impossible, of
course, it's a good argument. However, there is a reason that Yeager
is said to be the first to exceed Mach 1 in nearly level flight. It's
like the caveats on the Wrights.

George Welch was probably the first through mach one. I realize this damn
argument will go on forever, but Welch again is the general consensus of the
flight test community......and Yeager is very much a member of this
community :-)))

I have Chuck, Bob, Bob, Jack, and James's (Yeager, Cardenas, Hoover,
Russell, and Young) book, "The Quest for Mach One" right here
(autographed by Chuck because I bought it at the EDW museum). Not a
word about George Welch that I can find. Johnny Armstrong says the
X-1 was first, too, as did Jackie Ridley.

If that isn't "the flight test community", I don't know what is.

Even George Welch doesn't think he was first, according to both Dick
Hallion and Chuck Yeager. I heard Chuck say so when asked directly at
the 50th anniversary ceremony.

Mary
--
Mary Shafer
"There are only two types of aircraft--fighters and targets"
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

All of the other speed records set up until that time were in horizontal
flight.


Irrelevan't. We're not talking about setting records, we're talking about
achieving supersonic flight.



We lost more than one fighter from compressibility, and it's quite
possible that one or more made it "through" Mach 1 and back.


No, it's not at all possible.

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:10:40 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
...

When you break a speed record, one of the requirements is that you do it
in *level flight*.

But no such requirement existed for the first supersonic flight.

All of the other speed records set up until that time were in horizontal
flight.

John Derry is recognized as being the first Brit to exceed Mach 1 when
he flew the DH.108 Swallow down in an uncontrolled dive from 45,000
feet. He was able to wrestle back control (unlike Geoffrey de Havilland)
and land that ill mannered beast.

The first is still the first.... Even the USAF had the good sense to stress
the point that Yeager was the first in level flight, obviously surrendering any
outright claim to be first overall.

My regards,

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

In article , Chad Irby
writes
When you break a speed record, one of the requirements is that you do it
in *level flight*.

One could also argue another requirement, is that the 'aircraft'
achieving it, is self-sufficient and is capable of taking off under its
own power. Note the X-1 never held an official air speed record.

Putting a plane into a 40 degree dive kinda takes it out of the running,
especially since some American *prop* planes had probably done it before
1945. From reports, P-38 Lightnings had entered compressibility as far
back as 1941, and some had actually come out of it (not the safest
flight regime, back then).

Spitfires were dived to M.93 after WWII, and were better suited to
speeds in this range than most jets before the Sabre turned up.

--
John