F-86 and sound barrier
Unknown
F-86 and Mig-15 and heard that the F-86 can break the sound
barrier. I know that this has been claimed many time before
but is that the official position of the US Air Force? Is
Yeager still officially the first man to break the sound
barrier?
JDupre5762
>F-86 and Mig-15 and heard that the F-86 can break the sound
>barrier. I know that this has been claimed many time before
>but is that the official position of the US Air Force?
Certainly the F-86 can break the sound barrier in a shallow dive. Many pilots
got thier first taste of sonic flight that way. I have read that a Canadian
pilot used to open airshows by doing just that in the days before sonic booms
were outlawed in most areas.
> Is Yeager still officially the first man to break the sound
>barrier?
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'
Dan Shackelford
No, George Welch was the first to exceed Mach 1 in a dive with the
XP-86. See: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Welch2.html
I also have a better source, my father. He was part of the design team for
the Sabre at North American and they were informed about this BEFORE
Yeager broke the sound barrier. He had to keep mum on this for a long time
though.
Ed Majden
"JDupre5762" >
I have read that a Canadian
> pilot used to open airshows by doing just that in the days before sonic
booms
> were outlawed in most areas.
>
I witnessed an F86 braking the sound barrier as a young fellow at an
airshow in Regina Saskatchewan in the 1950's. Test pilot, Jan Zurakowski is
given credit for breaking the sound barrier in a prototype CF100 in 1951 or
1952. Quite an accomplishment in a straight winged aircraft of this type.
The Mk-5 Clunk could not do this as wing tip extensions were added to
improve operational ceiling extending the life of the CF100 for a few more
years. Jan retired after the stupid cancellation of the CF105 Avro Arrow
project.
Ed
Corey C. Jordan
>
>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
John Bailey
Breaking Mach 1 was a standard flight in the curriculum for Perrin
AFB's advanced flight training school for F86D interceptor pilots.
You went up to max alititude, nosed over into a full vertical dive
with full throttle and watched the Mach needle hit 1 before reducing
power and starting the pullout. This was in 1957. No biggie, except
the ego trip of claiming membership in the Machbuster's Club.
John Bailey
http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/mailto.html
John A. Weeks III
Shackelford <dans...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:16:00 -0500, wrote:
>
> > I was watching the Discovery Channel program comparing the F-86 and Mig-15
> > and heard that the F-86 can break the sound barrier. I know that this has
> > been claimed many time before but is that the official position of the US
> > Air Force? Is Yeager still officially the first man to break the sound
> > barrier?
> No, George Welch was the first to exceed Mach 1 in a dive with the
> XP-86. See: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Welch2.html
I think you misunderstood the question. The question isn't whether
it was Welch or Yeager, but who the USAF officially recognizes. At
this point in time, it is still Yeager.
-john-
--
====================================================================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
====================================================================
robert arndt
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:16:00 -0500, VH <> wrote:
>
> >I was watching the Discovery Channel program comparing the
> >F-86 and Mig-15 and heard that the F-86 can break the sound
> >barrier. I know that this has been claimed many time before
> >but is that the official position of the US Air Force? Is
> >Yeager still officially the first man to break the sound
> >barrier?
>
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.
As a matter of fact, in the US, according to various sources Yeager
was actually the 4th man to break Mach 1.
You might want to look into Project Blue Book also, another US
document. In the preface there is mention that the only machines
capable of flight like the UFOs being investigated at the time were "
certain developments of the Third Reich in the closing months of the
war". Certainly they are NOT comparing a superagile, gravity defying
UFO disc with a Me-262. It is obvious that Germany pioneered some
revolutionary aircraft at the close of the war and that what the US
recovered in material and/or documents (also from Wright Patterson)
has led throughout 6 decades to the strange enigmatic discs and black
triangles flying today. That's why German disc aircraft information
remains highly classified and wont be declassified until 2020- a full
75 years after WW2.
What does that tell you about how honest the USAF is and how
historically accurate aviation history is?
Rob
Corey C. Jordan
>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.
The highest speed ever attained by the F-80 was Mach 0.92, and it had a lower
drag coefficient than the 262. Hell, the 262 didn't even have a laminar flow
wing! Moreover, that slight degree of wing sweep was added simply for CG
purposes.
Unlike the XP-86, the Me 262 wasn't capable of even coming close to Mach 1.
Neither was the Me 163.
DunxC
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.
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.
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
Gordon
>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
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
Ed Majden
"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.
>
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
av8r
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
Ed Majden
"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
av8r
> 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
Corey C. Jordan
>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.
MLenoch
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
DunxC
>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
Walt BJ
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
Corey C. Jordan
> 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.
Corey C. Jordan
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.
Corey C. Jordan
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).
Unknown
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.
Tarver Engineering
"Corey C. Jordan" <Wide...@worldwar2aviation.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3f6f1e11...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On 22 Sep 2003 09:55:54 -0700, teut...@aol.com (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?
Gordon
>> 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
Tarver Engineering
"Gordon" <krzta...@aol.comint> wrote in message
news:20030923222113...@mb-m18.aol.com...
Hey, how are you doing Gordon. I don't doubt what you know, I just see no
purpose to parrots.
Gordon
>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 pissing 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
Tarver Engineering
"Gordon" <krzta...@aol.comint> 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.
Corey C. Jordan
wrote:
Snipped botched lobotomy induced drivel....
I thought California was restricting internet access at State institutions.
Guess they haven't gotten to Tarver's ward yet....
I recently read a newspaper story about a Jackass that wandered away from
a petting zoo and was struck by some dork doing 120 mph in a WRX.
Figured he was still in the hospital....
I wonder if Tarver even knows what a WRX is? I'm pretty sure he can't spell it.
Finally, is this a relative of your's Tarver?
From Annanova.com:
"A student cut off his own penis and his tongue after drinking an infusion of
the latest drugs craze to sweep Germany.
The 18-year-old, only named as Andreas W, from Halle in Germany drank a tea made
with the hallucinogenic angels' trumpet plants.
His mother said: "Andreas was behaving normally the whole day until he left the
house and disappeared into the garden for a couple of minutes."
When he returned to the house he was wearing a towel wrapped around him and was
bleeding heavily from his mouth and between his legs.
The emergency doctor who arrived a few minutes later said the student had cut
off his penis and his tongue with garden shears and it was impossible to
reattach the organs."
I ask because you have a lot in common, including not being able to talk about
getting laid....
5 little known facts about Tarver:
5) His favorite pickup line is; "hey babe, your place or my moms?"
4) His greatest moment of clarity arrived and all he could say was, "Someone
pull this wolverine off my nutsack!"
3) Chuck Yeager stopped by to see his simulator, but figured he didn't want to
sit in another AN-AL-2003 certified Cambodian fart basket.
2) Tarver is really a cranky South L.A. Korean grocer.
1) The inside of his hat smells like someone cured a Christmas ham in it.
Guy Alcala
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the XP-86 still have the 4,000 lb. thrust J35C-3
at that time? Quite a ways down on thrust from the 5,200 lb. J47-13 of the F-86A,
and the top speed of the XP-86 in the only reference I have handy is given as 618
mph @ 14,000 ft. and 575 mph @ 35,000 ft. (M0.875), versus the 677 (presumably lower
down) of the F-86A. The XP-86 is credited in the same source with first exceeding
Mach 1 on 26 April 1948, but it's implied (not explicitly stated) that it did so on
a 3,920 lb. thrust J35-A-5, and that the J47 was first installed in the F-86A. This
seems more than a bit odd, to install an untried engine in the production a/c
without flying it in the prototype first.
I've read pilot's accounts that say that some F-86As would 'hang up' and not quite
make it through the mach if you didn't do the roll in right, which suggests that the
XP-86 with its lower thrust might well have trouble. Of course, if exceeding mach
was mainly a question of drag rather than excess thrust, then it shouldn't have been
a major problem. I've just always wondered.
Guy
DunxC
>a 3,920 lb. thrust J35-A-5, and that the J47 was first installed in the
>F-86A. This
>seems more than a bit odd, to install an untried engine in the production a/c
The three XF-86As (sic) were all brought up to 'F-86A-1' standard by the time
they were delivered to the Air Force; that included fitting the J47.
Duncan
Andrew Chaplin
Copralite -- petrified dinosaur poop?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Gordon
>Copralite -- petrified dinosaur poop?
'zactly :)
Peter Stickney
The rather low thrust of the XP-86s is quite true, but in the case of
diving one through the Mach, it's pretty much irrelevant. The big
factor in barging into the region o rising drag isn't the 1,000-1,200#
of pusth that you're getting from the J35 at 40,000', bit the 13,000#
of gravity assist that you get in the dive. Of course, with such a
low thrust/weight, it took forever to get up there.
Roland Beamont made a "flying trip" to the U.S. in '47-'48 to assess
the various projects that were going on, and to get some first-hand
experience with American aircraft developments. (He flew the P-80A,
the P-84A, a B-45 prototype, and an XP-86) He did, in fact, make a
transonic dive in a J35 power XP-86. He did a series of article
about this trip, includig the flight test reports, in "Aeroplane" back
in 'bout 1988 or 1989. They were also chapters in "Testing the Early
Jets".
> I've read pilot's accounts that say that some F-86As would 'hang up' and not quite
> make it through the mach if you didn't do the roll in right, which suggests that the
> XP-86 with its lower thrust might well have trouble. Of course, if exceeding mach
> was mainly a question of drag rather than excess thrust, then it shouldn't have been
> a major problem. I've just always wondered.
It's not so much a matter of thrust, as making sure you've got enough
dive angle on before you start getting into the thicker air below,
say, 20,000'. If you didn't get it pointed pretty much straight down,
you'd be running into thick air pretty fast.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
Guy Alcala
<snip>
I've read the latter, and also some article he (I think) wrote elsewhere in which he said
that it was somewhat in doubt whether
he had indeed broken the Mach, owing to instrument error.
Guy
Tarver Engineering
"Gordon" <krzta...@aol.comint> wrote in message
> >
> >Copralite -- petrified dinosaur poop?
>
> 'zactly :)
As opposed to the parrot being a dinosaur poop salesman.
Shafer and Bon-Myer were lucky to be let walk away, as opposed to some
Federal charges. In addition to that RIF, Dryden is looking at a cut from
$120 million this year to $80 million in FY04. The money that I made fall
from the sky for 15 years is gone, along with any credibility the facility
still had. Thanks Dudley.
Gordon
>Shafer and Bon-Myer were lucky to be let walk away, as opposed to some
>Federal charges.
<snip>
John, I don't know what you have against Mary, but from my personal experience,
she was just a gem to my son and I. He has some priceless memories due
directly to her and during our visits, it was clearly obvious that she was
looked upon as a highly respected fixture in the Dryden landscape.
Gordon
Tarver Engineering
"Gordon" <krzta...@aol.comint> wrote in message
> >
> >Shafer and Bon-Myer were lucky to be let walk away, as opposed to some
> >Federal charges.
>
> <snip>
>
> John, I don't know what you have against Mary, but from my personal
experience,
> she was just a gem to my son and I.
I left Mary to her fantasy, until Dudley's conspiracy began. It is not my
fault.
> He has some priceless memories due
> directly to her and during our visits, it was clearly obvious that she was
> looked upon as a highly respected fixture in the Dryden landscape.
Mary grew up at Dryden, much like Bon-Myer and what you say was true until
last year. Attacking someone in the real world over some kook troll she was
running was a huge mistake and she has hurt everyone at Dryden. I am sure
Richards told her she should back away from Dudley, but even she does not
know how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Tex Houston
"Gordon" <krzta...@aol.comint> wrote in message
Gordon,
Damn that sorry son of a bitch!
Tex
Tarver Engineering
"Tex Houston" <777tex...@pcisys.net777> wrote in message
news:vn6vud7...@corp.supernews.com...
Yeah, that Dudley is an SOB.
Even the woman Shafer was impersonating at ram got run off from NASA.
Mark Schaeffer
the time of her speed-record flights in a Canadian-built Sabre,
she and Yeager dove their respective Sabres in tandem, each breaking Mach 1.
Mark
gpb...@gmail.com
> I was watching the Discovery Channel program comparing the
> F-86 and Mig-15 and heard that the F-86 can break the sound
> barrier. I know that this has been claimed many time before
> but is that the official position of the US Air Force? Is
> Yeager still officially the first man to break the sound
> barrier?
I go with George Welch as being the first pilot to break the sound Barrier.
One of the closest prior to his accomplishment was in April 1944, Squadron
Leader Anthony F Martindale put a Mark XI Spitfire into a dive. The
reduction gear designed to limit its speed failed. The propeller ripped
off and the diving aircraft reached more than 620mph (1,000km/h) – Mach 0.92
Complete Aerogeek
> > I was watching the Discovery Channel program comparing the F-86 and Mig-15
> > and heard that the F-86 can break the sound barrier. I know that this has
> > been claimed many time before but is that the official position of the US
> > Air Force? Is Yeager still officially the first man to break the sound
> > barrier?
> XP-86. See: http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Welch2.html
> I also have a better source, my father. He was part of the design team for
> the Sabre at North American and they were informed about this BEFORE
> Yeager broke the sound barrier. He had to keep mum on this for a long time
> though.
No unfortunately, with respect, this is a zombie myth and one that has been repeatedly examined in detail for over 60 years and found wanting. It's almost tiresome. This entire story rests on a single anecdote about Welch casually walking into an NA engineer's office after a flight and describing his experience with an increase in buffet that went away during a dive. This is exactly what happens when you dive at higher altitude (colder air-lower Mach number) and as you descend the air warms up, the speed of sound increases and you move further away from the buffet boundary. He also noticed a blip in his ASI, likely a result of localised disturbance as it had not been calibrated. The engineer responded:
"Looks like you might have been experiencing some Mach effects" or words to that effect.
This statement has then been taken and mythologised as proof of the first supersonic flight (not unlike a thoroughly discredited one by a ME-262 pilot) but anyone with any idea about aerodynamics knows that 'Mach effects' occur the minute an aircraft passes its critical Mach number. MCrit is when any part of an aircraft experiences localised supersonic flow, not when the aircraft is fully supersonic.
As an example, P-38s experience Mach buffet at 0.70. A PR Spitfire wing's Mcrit was mapped at M0.89 because of its very thin broad chord wing and in fact holds, to this day, a verified record for propeller driven aircraft during diving tests run by the Royal Aircraft Establishment in 1944 at Mach 0.92, but propellers don't like high Mach numbers and promptly departed the aircraft along with its reduction gearbox, resulting in an 11G pullup and a rather bent aircraft. But I digress.
The XP-86 was at an extremely early stage of testing, (the aircraft had flown just a handful of times) the aircraft was not instrumented, i.e. no trace recorders, no telemetry, the pitot/static system had not even been corrected for position error, there were no instruments to correct for OAT and therefore Mach number and to top it off, it had the low powered early Allison J35-C-3, a 3,750 lb thrust engine (1/2 the power the F-86 would have in the ultimate CAC 32 Avon Sabre version) Additionally, existing NA records show that it was conducting low and medium speed handling trials at the time. High speed testing came in 1948, in other words, it was not conducting the part of the flight envelope expansion that any sane aircraft manufacturer would accept as a suitable risk to a two week old aircraft, and the only one of its kind in existence.
If anyone can present authentic copies of NAA test program flight data from this date to say otherwise, i would be happy to see it but otherwise, it a just another zombie myth.
The F-86A set its first official world speed record of 671 miles per hour (1,080 km/h) (on September 15, 1948, at Muroc Dry Lake, flown by Major Richard L. Johnson, USAF. It is not clear if this was a supersonic flight as altitude is not given. If this was at 10,000' on an ISA+10 day (being Muroc in September) that makes Mach 1.02 but this is very unlikely unless it was a dive. As far as I am aware FIA only awards records in level flight flown in 2 directions within 1 hour. In level flight at 5,000 ISA +15, that would be M 0.952
By late 1948 USAF pilots were having all kinds of fun booming crowds in F-86s but this was with full production, fully tested and higher powered aircraft...
Jim Wilkins
news:7ba053af-5151-4b6c...@googlegroups.com...
>If anyone can present authentic copies of NAA test program flight data
>from this date to say otherwise, i would be happy to see it but otherwise,
>it a just another zombie myth.
https://plane-encyclopedia.com/cold-war/north-american-xp-86/
"North American test crews heard about this feat through rumors and
persuaded NACA to use its equipment to track the XP-86 in a high-speed dive
to see if there was a possibility that the XP-86 could also go supersonic.
This test was done on October 19, five days after Yeager’s flight, in which
George Welch was tracked at Mach 1.02. The tests were flown again on October
21 with the same results. Since Welch had been performing the very same
flight patterns in tests before October 14, there is the possibility that
he, not Chuck Yeager, might have been first to exceed the speed of sound."
Jim Wilkins
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:unbm6t$kjnl$1...@dont-email.me...
This expands on Welch's story and repeats that NACA measured 1.02 Mach for
the diving XP-86, -after- Yeager's flight, which doesn't confirm or deny
that he did it before.
https://www.aviatorsdatabase.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Pilot-George-S.-Welch-.pdf