US Coverup of Me-262 Mach Flight

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:13:01 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. ..

Putting a plane into a 40 degree dive doesn't count, or the P-38 would
have made this "record" in 1941.

Supersonic flight in a dive would have counted, but no P-38 ever exceeded
the speed of sound in any attitude.

Some reports suggest it did. It had the streamlining and terminal
velocity characteristics to manage it, if the pilot could deal with the
compressibility problems. But the claims are, to say the least, iffy.

Impossible. Since the prop goes supersonic long before the aircraft,
the pressure rise won't allow it. At high sub-sonic speeds propellers
make remarkable air brakes.

If any WWII fighter was least likely to get near Mach 1, it was the P-38
with its 0.68 critical Mach.

My regards,

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

(Corey C. Jordan) wrote:

If any WWII fighter was least likely to get near Mach 1, it was the P-38
with its 0.68 critical Mach.

And as any truthful RAF Sea Vixen driver would attest, not to mention
the P-38's relatively dirty twin boom design.

-Mike Marron

Wild dreams? And WHOSE dreams were they that got America to the moon?
Hint: Saturn V rocket which was Von Braun's baby.

What does that swine have to do with this discussion? As far as I know he never
touched an Me262. He did manage to abuse and kill concentration camp inmates
working on the A4/V2. None of which has anything to do with whether the Me262
did anything.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
Bill Silvey wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
I don't have it in front of me but IIRC Yeager said in "Wings" that
a P-51 could do it.

Don't think so. Yeager knows better than this believe me. But I'm
sure what he did say could easily have been mistaken , as he has
discussed high mach dives in prop fighters on many occasions.

I double-checked; Yeager said he'd gotten his P51 to Mach .7 in a dive.

A Spitfire was taken up into - IIRC - the 0.8-0.9 Mach range during
trials just before the end of WW2 - destroyed the prop and engine in the
process, but somehow the pilot got it all down in one piece. That's
still the Mach record for a piston-engined a/c, I believe.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

In article ,
Mike Marron wrote:
(Corey C. Jordan) wrote:

If any WWII fighter was least likely to get near Mach 1, it was the P-38
with its 0.68 critical Mach.

And as any truthful RAF Sea Vixen driver would attest, not to mention
the P-38's relatively dirty twin boom design.

*Ahem*
ITYM "any truthful FAA Sea Vixen driver.."

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales....
Nieveler's law: "Any USENET thread, if sufficiently prolonged and not
Godwinated, will eventually turn into a discussion about
alcoholic drinks."

"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mike Marron wrote:
(Corey C. Jordan) wrote:

If any WWII fighter was least likely to get near Mach 1, it was the P-38
with its 0.68 critical Mach.

And as any truthful RAF Sea Vixen driver would attest, not to mention
the P-38's relatively dirty twin boom design.

*Ahem*
ITYM "any truthful FAA Sea Vixen driver.."

--


For me, I am always confusing the Javelin and Sea Vixen. With similar
performance and both bush pig-ugly I have to catch myself from making the
same mistake.


cheers


Dave Kearton

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net
"Bill Silvey" wrote in message
news

I don't have it in front of me but IIRC Yeager said in "Wings" that
a P-51 could do it.


If he said that he's wrong, but I doubt he said it.

See my earlier post regarding. My mistake.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

Mike Marron wrote:

(Corey C. Jordan) wrote:

If any WWII fighter was least likely to get near Mach 1, it was the P-38
with its 0.68 critical Mach.

And as any truthful RAF Sea Vixen driver would attest, not to mention
the P-38's relatively dirty twin boom design.

-Mike Marron


Two booms?...isn't that the signature of an a/c achieving mach
one?. So the P-38 IS supersonic then?.
--

-Gord.

(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

And as any truthful RAF Sea Vixen driver would attest, not to mention
the P-38's relatively dirty twin boom design.

*Ahem*
ITYM "any truthful FAA Sea Vixen driver.."

Whatever. Anything with "Vixen" in the name...

-Mike (vixen booty) Marron

And as any truthful RAF Sea Vixen driver would attest, not to mention
the P-38's relatively dirty twin boom design.

-Mike Marron


Two booms?...isn't that the signature of an a/c achieving mach
one?. So the P-38 IS supersonic then?.
--

-Gord.

Gord, not to put too fine a point on it, but that reeks. What's worse is I
didn't think of it first.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired