F-86 and sound barrier

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

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

"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

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

"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

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

On 22 Sep 2003 17:24:26 GMT, (DunxC) wrote:

Hi all,

The 'Welch/Yeager' argument conveniently ignores the NAA flight records for the
period in question. Either Blackburn didn't have these for his book or chose to
ignore them, but they clearly detail Welch's undercarriage problem on October
1, 1947 and also detail the redesign necessary prior to the next flight with
the undercarriage functioning. To suggest that NAA had to bolt the gear down to
prevent Welch going supersonic is ridiculous.

Blackburn does not ignore the problem with the nose gear cylinder. I suggest
you re-read his book (I read the galleys months before the book went into
print and received one of the first books off the press).

The next flight was on October 9, before then, the NAA guys had already solved
the nose gear problem and wanted to install the fix ASAP... Over objections,
they were ordered to "bolt" the gear down and disable the handle. It seems the
USAF wanted their inspectors to check the fix prior to installation. Should
anyone be surprised that they said it may take two weeks to do the inspection?
As it was, the inspection did not occur until October 11, and it took two days
to install and do a series of drop checks on the jacks.



Incidentally, Blackburn also conveniently neglects to include the fact that
Welch had a P-82 chase for the first flight; it would have been difficult (not
to say crass) for Welch to sneak off and break the sound barrier with a chase
craft trying to determine the damage caused by the undercarriage malfunction
which happened during climb-out on flight number 1.

Again, you are flagrantly incorrect. Bob Chilton was flying the F-82 chase
plane and he orbited at 15,000 ft while Welch went off to wring out the Sabre.
Welch did not "sneak off", he merely informed Chilton that he was going up to
"feel it out". Chilton confirmed that the gear was up and locked visually prior
to Welch climbing out.

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 gear
would retract, but not extend fully due to aerodynamic forces. Once airspeed had
dropped to below 80 knots, the cylinder was able to fully extend and lock the
gear over-center.


Much as I love the F-86, it wasn't first to Mach 1. There is (and always has
been) no subsitute for good research.

Duncan

I agree, and you might want to practice it yourself.

My regards,

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

(Corey C. Jordan)

wrote:Again, you are flagrantly incorrect. Bob Chilton was flying the F-82
chase
plane and he orbited at 15,000 ft while Welch went off to wring out the
Sabre.

Anyone know what happened to Bob Chilton? Thx.
VL

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

(Corey C. Jordan) wrote:
On 22 Sep 2003 02:27:51 GMT,
(JDupre5762) wrote:

Yes. Though anecdotal evidence suggests strongly
that George Welch was
probably the first pilot to break the sound
barrier there will probably never
be any way to prove it in the same way that
Yeager's flight was. Apparently
though some time ago the Air Force took to
qualifying Yeager's flight as the
first sustained supersonic flight in level
attitude.

John Dupre'

Indeed, the evidence is very strong. However,
the eggheads involved in the
XS-1 program were well aware that Welch did
it without running his recorders,
and had no intention of admitting it publically
due to clear instructions from
the Secretary of the Air Force not to steal
the XS-1s thunder.

After Blackburn's book was published and additional
material showed up on
the internet, the XS-1 and Yeager defenders
came out of their holes howling
like the Knights of Columbus did over the Sopranos.

"Lies, all lies!!!!"

"Show us the proof!", they demanded. So, we
showed them what we had (and we
have a lot, some of which I got from the Welch
family). "Not good enough!", they
cried. I mean, the evidence is compelling and
I would not want to be on trial
for my life in the face of such evidence. But,
if you understand the anal
thought process of the typical egghead, you'll
also understand that nothing will
be good enough. On the other hand, the USAF
quickly amended their claim for
Yeager to read; "in level flight". Clearly,
THEY realised that the evidence was
enough to throw great doubt on their 50 year-old
milestone. Better to redefine the accomplishment
rather than explain why they
buried Welch's forays in the weeks prior to
Yeager's first Mach 1 run.

I can't blame the USAF for covering up the event.
Most of their research budget
was invested in the XS-1, as well as their prestige.
God forbid that a
production prototype should push past Mach 1
first!

After Welch's first "supersonic" dive, NAA was
ordered to bolt the XP-86's
landing gear down for future test flights to
prevent a repeat. NAA went along
with that for a few days, but ultimately let
Welch fly it again with the gear up
with Kindleburger and Atwood's blessing.

After Yeager finally achieved the initial program
goal of Mach 1+, the USAF
allowed NAA to run a fully instrumented speed
run (November of 1947). Finally,
the XP-86 was officially established as being
Mach 1+ capable. Yet, to protect
their precious XS-1 program, the USAF delayed
announcing the accomplishement
until April of 1948, and never accurately stated
when the flight took place.

Nonetheless, Welch flew the same aircraft, unmodified
from the early October
flights and flew the same flight profile as
he did on October 1. So, the
question I have for the eggheads is this; knowing
that Welch had an aircraft
capable of Mach ; knowing that he had opportunity;
knowing he stated he was
going to do it. Knowing that it was witnessed
by hundreds on the ground; knowing
that Welch claimed he did it; knowing that he
was first to report seeing what
has become known as "Mach jump"; can they prove
that he did not exceed
Mach 1 on October 1, 1947?

Of course they can't. The volume of evidence
(that mentioned above being only a
very small fraction of what is known) is impressive
and impossible to ignore.

Wisely, Yeager has been silent on the topic
but, without a doubt would have done
exactly what Welch did had he been in the cockpit
of the XP-86. This is the
stuff guys like Yeager and Welch live for.

By the way, is anyone aware that Welch flew
several combat sorties in the F-86
in Korea (as a civilian). Like Lindbergh in
the SWPA, Welch was in theater
showing F-86 pilots the strengths of the F-86.
Family members state that Welch
shot down several Migs during his brief assignment.
However, unlike his Mach 1
adventures, there exists no evidence that this
is true beyond his logbook
entries. To my knowledge, no USAF pilots who
were there have substantiated
this.

My regards,

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

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!