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

PosterBoy wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

snip

The caliber of the FK16 was changed in fact, the FK16 n/A was built from
1934 with new barrels to replace the 77mm FK 16's which were left over
from WW1 but in 1939 some 300 examples of the older gun were apparently
still in service being largely phased out by 1942. I'll agree that
few if any front line units would be so equipped and they seem mostly
to have been used for training.

Keith

Robert Nelson of the US 3rd Division wrote that at Anzio (he was there)
they used a captured "German 77" as an anti-tank weapon because they were
more effective than "our 57s."
http://tinyurl.com/pst6

I expect putting it in quotes was the correct thing to do. I imagine this is
one of those cases where everyone calls them "77s" because that's what they've
heard the Germans have (although late war, every german artillery piece tended
to be an "88", at least if you believe the troops).

Guy

Keith Willshaw wrote:

snip

The caliber of the FK16 was changed in fact, the FK16 n/A was built from
1934 with new barrels to replace the 77mm FK 16's which were left over
from WW1 but in 1939 some 300 examples of the older gun were apparently
still in service being largely phased out by 1942. I'll agree that
few if any front line units would be so equipped and they seem mostly
to have been used for training.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up.

Guy

"PosterBoy" wrote in message
news:PSZfb.25968$9l5.7473@pd7tw2no...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
...
Keith Willshaw wrote:



H'mm. the references I have all list the FK 16 n/A (neuer Art.) used
in
WW2
as 7.5 cm (75mm), but I suppose this could be one of those situations
where
the caliber was changed in name but not in fact. I wonder how many
were
still
around and in use in WW2. It seems unlikely that any were issued to
front-line divisions, as there seem to have been enough FH 18s (or
even
rechambered Russian 76.2mms) for them.

Guy


The caliber of the FK16 was changed in fact, the FK16 n/A was built from
1934 with new barrels to replace the 77mm FK 16's which were left over
from WW1 but in 1939 some 300 examples of the older gun were apparently
still in service being largely phased out by 1942. I'll agree that
few if any front line units would be so equipped and they seem mostly
to have been used for training.

Keith

Robert Nelson of the US 3rd Division wrote that at Anzio (he was there)
they used a captured "German 77" as an anti-tank weapon because they were
more effective than "our 57s."
http://tinyurl.com/pst6


Which is probably an error, the 77mm FK-16 was an old fashioned
field gun but the Germans did have some excellent 75mm AT guns

Keith

In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" writes:

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
So...

Howzabout thru mach one straight up?

Caveat: from brake release (e.g: relying on thrust/weight only)
Who: ??
What: F-15?or -16?
When: Early/mid-70's?

Who: Roland Beamont
What: English Electric Lightning
When:1959/60

The Lightnings initial climb rate was 50,000 ft per minute
which is slightly less than that of the F-15 and better than
the F-16

I really don't think so. Mach 1 at sea level is 66,800 ft/min, and at
36,000'. it's 58080. The Lightning's best climb speed would be
somewhere in the range of Mach 0.90 - 0.92, (Where the Drag Rise
really gets cooking). At sea level, Mach 0.90 is 60192 '/min.
The Lightning's 50,000'/minute climb rate would indicat an SEA of
0.83G (Thats (Thrust-Drag)/Weight) Which, while not supersonic, is no
slouch whatsoever.

I recall seeing one do its party trick at RAF Middleton St George
in the 60's , take off on full reheat, unstick and then climb out at
80 degrees going supersonic while still over the field

Impressive as hell and boy was it noisy. Of course you had
to declare a fuel emergency pretty much straight away
but still


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

The F104A would certainly exceed Mach 1 at zero feet. At Tyndall AFB
in the mid-fifties they did it about every day. All too soon the
authorities clamped down on it. FWIW with the old 3-b engine I've seen
725 on the clock at about 100'AGL.
Wonder what that Port St. Joe shrimp boat crew thought at 0600 when
they got a 'wake-up' call? Honestly, I was just burning out fuel prior
to landing and never saw thenm until too late.
Walt BJ

(WaltBJ) wrote:

The F104A would certainly exceed Mach 1 at zero feet. At Tyndall AFB
in the mid-fifties they did it about every day. All too soon the
authorities clamped down on it. FWIW with the old 3-b engine I've seen
725 on the clock at about 100'AGL.
Wonder what that Port St. Joe shrimp boat crew thought at 0600 when
they got a 'wake-up' call? Honestly, I was just burning out fuel prior
to landing and never saw thenm until too late.
Walt BJ

Of course Walt...who wouldn't believe that?...
--

-Gord.

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 14:25:14 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

(WaltBJ) wrote:

The F104A would certainly exceed Mach 1 at zero feet. At Tyndall AFB
in the mid-fifties they did it about every day. All too soon the
authorities clamped down on it. FWIW with the old 3-b engine I've seen
725 on the clock at about 100'AGL.
Wonder what that Port St. Joe shrimp boat crew thought at 0600 when
they got a 'wake-up' call? Honestly, I was just burning out fuel prior
to landing and never saw thenm until too late.
Walt BJ

Of course Walt...who wouldn't believe that?...

It sounds believable to me. I did the same thing. Always had to burn
out fuel prior to landing. Always tried to do it most efficiently.
Jets burn more fuel at lower altitude, therefore burn down efficiency
improves lower. And, since the "horizon" at 100 feet isn't very far,
you could be upon the boat before you realized. Yeah, sounds right to
me.

Now, let's put to bed this idea of accelerating through the mach
straight up. While modern jets with greater than 1-to-1 T/W ratios can
accelerate through the vertical, I sincerely doubt the mach claim. Too
much is going on with drag curves, deteriorating performance with
altitude, losses in engine efficiency, etc. I think only heavy lift
rockets accelerate through the mach in near vertical, but they
transition out of vertical fairly early in the flight trajectory and
may not be vertical either.

Ed Rasimus wrote:

snip

Now, let's put to bed this idea of accelerating through the mach
straight up. While modern jets with greater than 1-to-1 T/W ratios can
accelerate through the vertical, I sincerely doubt the mach claim. Too
much is going on with drag curves, deteriorating performance with
altitude, losses in engine efficiency, etc. I think only heavy lift
rockets accelerate through the mach in near vertical, but they
transition out of vertical fairly early in the flight trajectory and
may not be vertical either.

Oh, I don't know. While not a stock production a/c, the Streak Eagle was
certainly capable of doing so [From Jeff Ethell's book on the F-15]:

"The 3,000m record flight was piloted by Maj Roger Smith. With a
thrust-to-weight ratio at release of over 1.6 to 1 the 'Streak Eagle' lifted
off the ground after a roll of only 400ft, approximately seven airplane
lengths. Smith quickly raised the landing gear and maintained nearly level
flight while accelerating to approximately Mach 0.6. The aircraft was then
rotated by a 5g pullup to a near vertical climb attitude. The Eagle
accelerated during this climb to Mach 1 and reached the specified 3,000m
altitude in 27.57 seconds. The 6,000m, 9,000m, and 12,000m records, were
set by Maj Willard 'Mac' MacFarlane in one flight of 16 January [1975]. The
profile was similar to the 3,000m flight except that a maximum speed of Mach
0.7 was obtained before the pullup. MacFarlane and his Eagle were at sonic
speed only 23 seconds after brake release."

"The third flight on 16 January was made by Maj Dave Peterson for the
15,000m record. On this and subsequent flights pilots were wearing pressure
suits. Upon liftoff Maj Peterson accelerated about 50ft over the runway to
0.65 Mach and pulled into a 55 degree flight path angle to reach the 15,000m
target altitude (49,212 ft) in 77.05 seconds. This is approximately 10sec
quicker to that altitude than the Saturn V rocket boosted the Apollo
spacecraft on its way to the moon."

"The 20,000m profile with Maj Smith again at the controls consisted of a
giant Immelmann manoeuvre starting at Mach 0.65 on the deck and pulling 2.5g
until the airplane was over the top at 32,000ft and acceperating in the
opposite direction. While passing throuhg 20,000ft the Eagle was vertical
with a 2.5g load factor and a rate of climb faster than the speed of sound.
At Mach 1.5 Smith pulled 4g into a 55 degree climb and held it there to
66,617ft in 122.94 secs elapsed time. The margin over the 'Foxbat' record
was 28%."

"Maj Peterson then took over for the 25,000m record and flew a similar
profile. Maximum speed achieved was Mach 1.8 just prior to the second
pullup. The specified altitude of 82,021ft was achieved in 161.02 sec at a
speed of Mach 0.6. The a/c eased over the top and descended without
incident. This beat the 'Foxbat's' time by 17%."

In 1973 the MiG-25 climbed to 30,000m in 4 min 3.86sec. when Maj Smith made
the flight to break this record, he lifted off the runway at a weight of
32,000lb after 500ft of ground roll, accelerating to Mach 0.65 and then
pulling into a 2.5g Immemann similar to the two previous record profiles.
After rolling 180 deg. at the top of the climb Smith accelerated in a slight
climb to build up total energy. The 'Streak Eagle' passed through Mach 2
approximately 21 miles downrange and two minutes from takeoff. At Mach 2.2
Smith pulled up to [Sic. 'at'] 4g and attained a 55 deg. flight path
whereupon the stick was relaxed to maintain a constant climb attitutde. The
30,000m mark (98,425ft) was achieved in 207.08sec, bettering the 'Foxbat'
time by 36 sec. The a/c maintained a nearly ballistic freefall path as it
went over the top at 102,400ft."

[Later in the book, describing his own flight in a stock F-15B with Lt. Col.
Dick Stamm, CO of the 22nd TFS, 36th TFW, from Alconbury, for an ACM hop
with the 527th; 36th TFW CO Col. Perry Smith was the wingman]:

"When Dick released the brakes and lit the afterburners, I was slammed back
in my seat with a force very similar to launches I had made from an aircraft
carrier catapult. Before I could catch my breath, the F-15 had traveled
900ft and rotated. The nose came up . . . and up . . . and up! From
rotation Dick pulled the nose up into a 90*degree climb a scant few hundred
feet off the runway. And the aircraft was accelerating while going straight
up*."

"I watched the earth recede rapidly -- this must be what a moon shot was
like -- and glanced up at a cloud deck at 15,000ft. We slammed through it
in a flash; no gradual ascent through. By the time I looked back it was far
below."

"Due to airspace and speed restrictions, Dick had to pull the burners back,
but there was no question a clean, lightly fueled Eagle will go supersonic
straight up from a standing start."

*Given that the F-15 seat is reclined at an angle of 13 degrees IIRC, the
a/c probably wasn't straight up as they'd be hanging by their heads if it
was, but at some angle around 77 degrees, unless Ethell was referencing the
HUD climb ladder at the time.

Guy

The 105 and the Vark were reputed to be frightfully fast down low ... 800+
KIAS with ease. Daryl Greenameyer's suped up 104 was doing 812-815 at 70'
AGL (and approximately 5000 MSL) when he did his record attempt. F-14B's
are good for 800+ as well.

I understand that the Streak Eagle (stripped airframe, tweaked engines)
would actually bust mach in the vertical. Hold it down to around 450,
smooth pull to just past vertical and then an unload to maximize
thrust/drag. This would have been the preferred profile for the
intermediate altitudes ... each one was tailored to reflect fuel load,
target altitude, etc.

R / John

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
(WaltBJ) wrote:

The F104A would certainly exceed Mach 1 at zero feet. At Tyndall AFB
in the mid-fifties they did it about every day. All too soon the
authorities clamped down on it. FWIW with the old 3-b engine I've seen
725 on the clock at about 100'AGL.
Wonder what that Port St. Joe shrimp boat crew thought at 0600 when
they got a 'wake-up' call? Honestly, I was just burning out fuel prior
to landing and never saw thenm until too late.
Walt BJ

Of course Walt...who wouldn't believe that?...
--

-Gord.

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 19:03:36 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

snip

Now, let's put to bed this idea of accelerating through the mach
straight up. While modern jets with greater than 1-to-1 T/W ratios can
accelerate through the vertical, I sincerely doubt the mach claim. Too
much is going on with drag curves, deteriorating performance with
altitude, losses in engine efficiency, etc. I think only heavy lift
rockets accelerate through the mach in near vertical, but they
transition out of vertical fairly early in the flight trajectory and
may not be vertical either.

Oh, I don't know. While not a stock production a/c, the Streak Eagle was
certainly capable of doing so [From Jeff Ethell's book on the F-15]:

--rest of very detailed and impressive data snipped, but should be
referred to for context.---

Guy


All well and good, but the issue is could an airplane accelerate
through the mach vertically. I contend the answer is no. While the
Streak Eagle stuff is arguably the best documented and most
impressive, it involves accelerating transition into the vertical. To
truly be an acceleration through the mach vertically, it would require
establishing the vertical, then choosing max power and performing the
acceleration. IOW, pick a subsonic speed, such as 600 KIAS for the
pullup to vertical, and even allow for throttle modulation to maintain
constant airspeed through the transition to stabilized vertical at 600
KIAS, NOW accelerate from that point through the mach.

I'm still a skeptic.