PDA

View Full Version : Me.262 the 1st aircraft to break the sound barrier?



XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 08:18 PM
I found a referance in the following, it says as the "air flow around the aircraft". Not 100% clear if that implys that the aircraft is moving at that speed, or just the air flow at certain points. Anyway, read it yourself.. and someone call chuck! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

From the T-2 AMG Techniical intelligence ME 262A-1 PILOT'S HANDBOOK by F.D. Van wart, 1st Lt., Air Corps release date 15 July 1946.

HEADQUARTERS
ARI MATEREL COMMAND
WRIGHT FIELD, DAYTON, OHIO

SUMMARY REPORT
REPORT NO. F-SU-1111-ND
DATE 10 JANUARY 1946

section GENERAL FLYING CHARACTERISTICS
sub sec DIVING
a. There is reported to be no flutter while diving, possibly due to the hight postion of the horizontal stabilizer in relation to the wing.

b. Speeds of 950 km/hr (590 mph) are reported to have been attained in a shallow dive 20 degrees to 30 degrees from the horizontal. No vertiacl divers were made. At speeds of 950 to 1000 km/hr (590 to 620 mph) the air flow around the aircraft reaches the speed of sound, and it is reported that the control surfaces no longer effect the direction of flight. The results vary with different airplanes; some ing over and dive while otehrs dive gradually. It is also reported that once the speed of sound is EXCEEDED, this condition disappears and normal control is restored.


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 09/29/0312:19PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 08:18 PM
I found a referance in the following, it says as the "air flow around the aircraft". Not 100% clear if that implys that the aircraft is moving at that speed, or just the air flow at certain points. Anyway, read it yourself.. and someone call chuck! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

From the T-2 AMG Techniical intelligence ME 262A-1 PILOT'S HANDBOOK by F.D. Van wart, 1st Lt., Air Corps release date 15 July 1946.

HEADQUARTERS
ARI MATEREL COMMAND
WRIGHT FIELD, DAYTON, OHIO

SUMMARY REPORT
REPORT NO. F-SU-1111-ND
DATE 10 JANUARY 1946

section GENERAL FLYING CHARACTERISTICS
sub sec DIVING
a. There is reported to be no flutter while diving, possibly due to the hight postion of the horizontal stabilizer in relation to the wing.

b. Speeds of 950 km/hr (590 mph) are reported to have been attained in a shallow dive 20 degrees to 30 degrees from the horizontal. No vertiacl divers were made. At speeds of 950 to 1000 km/hr (590 to 620 mph) the air flow around the aircraft reaches the speed of sound, and it is reported that the control surfaces no longer effect the direction of flight. The results vary with different airplanes; some ing over and dive while otehrs dive gradually. It is also reported that once the speed of sound is EXCEEDED, this condition disappears and normal control is restored.


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

Message Edited on 09/29/0312:19PM by tagert

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 08:26 PM
The airflow around the frame travel at different speeds. Some vortices etc can go supersonic and cause certain effects, but that doesn't mean the plane itself is supersonic. Propellers also can go supersonic. Even helicopters can have supersonic airflow on the rotor-tips.



http://www.x-plane.org/users/olaleier/believesig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 08:40 PM
none of the WWII era planes could withstand the compression, friction, and turbulence associated w/ breaking the sound barrier.

To break the sound barrier, aircraft designers had to improve the source of thrust as well as the structural integrity of the aircraft.

<center> http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/images/crazyPilot.gif
<font size= 2>

<a href="http://webpages.charter.net/Stick_Fiend/"><font size= 2> Stick_Fiend Home<a/><font size= 2>
"Altitude, speed, maneuver, fire!"-The "formula of Terror" of Aleksandr Pokryshkin, Three times awarded the rank of Hero of the Soviet Union

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 09:13 PM
The airflow could reach the speed of sound in places without the a/c breaking apart.
But you break the speed of sound only if you fly faster than the sound, not if the airflow is faster than the sound at places around the wing due to it's design.
The Typhoon suffered such unexpected problems that restricted it's value but the 262 had wing design far ahead of it's time for high speed flight and could reach very high speeds before such problems appeared.
But no, it didn't break the sound barrier and I don't think it could anyway.
It would indeed break apart.

<center>http://users.compulink.gr/ilusin@e-free.gr/bf109[2)1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 09:20 PM
olaleier wrote:
- The airflow around the frame travel at different
- speeds. Some vortices etc can go supersonic and
- cause certain effects, but that doesn't mean the
- plane itself is supersonic. Propellers also can go
- supersonic. Even helicopters can have supersonic
- airflow on the rotor-tips.

I figured as much.. And they even knew that back then.. So why the note at all? It is kind of a DUH! And I didnt give it much thought until I read the following line:

>>It is also reported that once the speed of sound
>>is EXCEEDED, this condition disappears and normal
>>control is restored.

Which is exactally the behavior many pilots describe in the 50 during the whole sound barrier breaking investigations. I think Chuck even made note of it in the X plane.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 09:45 PM
- >>It is also reported that once the speed of sound
- >>is EXCEEDED, this condition disappears and normal
- >>control is restored.
-
- Which is exactally the behavior many pilots describe
- in the 50 during the whole sound barrier breaking
- investigations. I think Chuck even made note of it
- in the X plane.


Yeah, once those tricky airflows exceed supersonic speed, the problems disappear, cause theres no more compression. Transsonic airflows cause the most headache. Nothing to do with the speed of the aircraft itself.





http://www.x-plane.org/users/olaleier/believesig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 09:52 PM
olaleier wrote:
- Yeah, once those tricky airflows exceed supersonic
- speed, the problems disappear, cause theres no more
- compression. Transsonic airflows cause the most
- headache. Nothing to do with the speed of the
- aircraft itself.

So that was pretty typical than? I allways associated that with the snd barrier problem.. I was allways unter the impression that this *effect* of regaining control was post the speed of sound for the aircraft itself.. But if what your saying is true.. Alot of aircrart could have experanced this loss of ctrl near the speed of sound, and at some point prior to the speed of sound the ctrl was regained? Ok.. I just allways thouguth it was an effec that was only noticed once the whole ac went past the speed of snd.. but I guess I could see where as long as the *areas* in and around the ctrl surfaces (allerions, elevator, etc) is what really maters.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 10:03 PM
I don't believe a 262 could do it.But as I posted before I did read many years ago that a 163(I believe the later series)was towed up and the engine started in the air and that it did break the sound barrier.It was flown over the baltic and I believe there was some indication that the allies found out about it.Pilot described just what you posted plane uncontrolable and then back to steady after the boom.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 10:22 PM
Charles 'Chuck' Yeager gets the honor of being the first to break the speed of sound simply because the instruments and recording devices along with eye witnesses where there to authenticate the event.

It much along the lines why the Wright Brothers are honored with the first powered heavier than air flight. Even though Maxim's steam powered biplane lifted off its tether rail even when it wasn't suppose to.

And there was also a canadian that had a bat wings glider design powered by a small steam engine that has been claimed by several witnesses as having flown before the wright brothers. And even a historical commitee recreated the aircraft from the blueprints and powered it with a small equivalent power gasonline engine and it flew.



http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 10:24 PM
the engineers at stormbirds.com who are building 5 me262 have stated that it would have been impossible for the 262 to break speed of sound the airframe and skin were not strong enough to get into and thru compressabliaty, they had a real 262 to get all true measurments from.....my .02

U.S INFANTRY 84-91

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 10:45 PM
turenne wrote:
- I don't believe a 262 could do it.But as I posted
- before I did read many years ago that a 163(I
- believe the later series)was towed up and the engine
- started in the air and that it did break the sound
- barrier.It was flown over the baltic and I believe
- there was some indication that the allies found out
- about it.Pilot described just what you posted plane
- uncontrolable and then back to steady after the
- boom.
-
-
It would appear that the Me-163 could not do so:

From the website of Me-163 Chief test pilot Rudy Oiptz


"When supersonic flow begins to appear on a wing or tail surface, the aerodynamic center moves aft, causing a nose-down pitching moment. As the Mach number increases, a shock wave forms at the aft boundary of the supersonic-flow bubble. When the shock gets strong enough it will cause the airflow to separate aft of the shock, leading to a loss of lift. This condition is called "shock stall."

On the Me 163, the combination of the aft shift in aerodynamic center and shock stall led to a dangerous condition known as "Mach tuck." If the Mach number exceeded approximately 0.85, the airplane would begin to nose down on its own. The pilot would naturally react by pulling on the stick and deflecting the elevons upward. This would cause a shock wave to form on the underside of the wing at the elevon hinge line. The elevons would shock stall and be unable to bring the nose up, causing the airplane to pitch over into an ever-steepening dive. The only hope for recovery was to wait until the airplane had dived to a lower altitude where the speed of sound is higher, thus reducing Mach number, and the elevons would regain effectiveness."

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/me163/me163_6.asp


Additionally, if you get a chance to read the book "Rocket Fighter" by Mano Zeigler he tells about a specific incident in which two Me-163 fighters lost control during an attack on P-38's when they exceeded 1,000 kph.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 11:15 PM
You all make good points, but miss one very important point on why the ME-262 could not break the sound barrier.

The turbines would have exploded! Right at the sound barrier you get a shock wave. Which is what killed so many test pilots. This shockwave would have entered the 262's engines basically blowing them apart.

Modern jet fighters are all designed as so when flying at supersonic speeds the airflow into the turbines is subsonic. Thats why Mig-21's have a shock cone in the nose. It's not there for cool looks or aerodynamics.

Also the British BAC Lightening has a shock cone. More modern jets simply have a redesigned intake.
It's also the primary factor as to why a rocket was used to break the sound barrier and not a jet.

So had the 262 broken it there would be no report except a lost aircraft report.

Also people need to give up on the who flew first argument. There was a specific criteria for what qualified as the first powered flight. Many people made hops before the wright brothers made their flight.

Also "witnesses" back then had little or no clue as to what powered flight meant. If it lifted off the ground and went 20 feet forward, and 10 feet up they would have said that it flew.


Every take-off is optional, but every landing is mandatory!

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 11:22 PM
I read an article once that said a F8 Bearcat sounded funny at full throtle because the tips of the prop were going faster than the speed of sound. Dont know if it is true or not. Same kind of thing though just vague second or third hand reports. I heard about this report where th 262 broke the sound barrier. I did some searching into it but could not validate the report.

XyZspineZyX
09-29-2003, 11:55 PM
Tagert, where did you find this report? We found it while data diving with the historian back at NAIC (National Air Intelligence Center), and thought it was pretty interesting. While there wasn't much more than that snippet on transsonic or supersonic performance of the 262, we weren't sure whether it could have gone supersonic or not. It definitely wouldn't have been a fun ride, but in my opinion it's not impossible. And the ride would have been pretty much as your intitial post described (rough through the transonic region, then smoothing out as the flow went uniformly supersonic.) Tenmike, we didn't have the input from the Stormbirds guys. At high enough altitude, the dynamic pressure would have been low enough to allow the structure to withstand the loads. I don't know what altitude the Stormbirds engineers were considering. Aeroelastic effects (like control reversal) and "Mach buzz" would be my biggest worries. Like I said, it wouldn't be a fun ride, if possible at all. Wing sweep would help some, but apparently the designers used this primarily for CG control, not high Mach aerodynamics (though regardless of their intentions, it would have delayed Mach effects on the wing.)

Zysbot, thanks for the 163 input, that's good stuff. Because of it's tailless design (as opposed to a true delta wing, which has much better supersonic characteristics) it wouldn't have been able to go supersonic, for the reasons Herr Opitz states.

Hopperfly, you have a good point about not feeding supersonic flow to a turbine. But there will be an oblique shock wave off the nose, another off the engine centerbody, and a normal shock wave at the intake lip. Since velocity slows through a shock wave (and pressure and temperature increase), for low supersonic Mach numbers (below 1.3 or so) the flow would be subsonic by the time it hit the compressor face. The heated air being fed to the engine would be a bigger worry. There weren't exactly high temperature alloys in the Jumo, and that extra heat might not have been good for the engine.

There used to be a website with a 262 pilot's account of supposedly going super in April of 45, but the link's dead now.

http://www.unsere-luftwaffe.de/mach1/first_flg.htm

As to who was the first to break the sound barrier, let me add more grist to the mill. George Welch was a test pilot flying the XP-86 in 1947, and a strong case has been made that he, not Chuck Yeager, broke the sound barrier first. One link on this topic is here:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0113.shtml

While my former coworkers and I weren't sure either way about the 262, we felt the case was pretty convincing for Welsh.

Blotto

"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter craft, no matter how technically advanced." - A. Galland

"Look, do you want the jets, or would you rather I slap the props back on?" - W. Messerschmitt

http://home.mindspring.com/~blottogg/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/14fsPatch.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 12:23 AM
CCC402 wrote:
- I read an article once that said a F8 Bearcat
- sounded funny at full throtle because the tips of
- the prop were going faster than the speed of sound.
- Dont know if it is true or not.

Thats what goes on with a great number of propeller aircraft. Even the Harvards, one of the great trainer aircraft of WWII have this exceptional sound that the propeller makes because its breaking the speed of sound at the tips as it goes through the air.

Scientists who study various odd and somewhat trivial things have found using motion capture cameras and sensitive equipment that a whip, when controlled properly actually breaks the speed of sound.

The real interest in the speed of sound "barrier" is because it posed a problem for control of an entire powered aircraft in supersonic.

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 12:26 AM
Are not the guys over at Stormbirds putting warnings about flying above a certain speed because the airframe will not take it? I think it is somewhere around 600, but don't know off hand

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 12:51 AM
here is the stormbirds take on it...........................JUMO The Jumo-powered Me 262 was capable of level flight speeds in excess of 540 miles per hour at altitude; a trait that made it all but invulnerable to Allied escort fighters.

Higher airspeeds were recorded under certain circumstances but, in general, compressibility-related aerodynamic factors prevented the airframe from ever pushing into the high transonic range.

Postwar tests in the West confirmed that at very high airspeeds airframe vibration levels and buffeting grow increasingly worse until the jet enters into a shallow dive and becomes all but completely uncontrollable. Recently revealed Soviet documents demonstrate that this was also a major finding in Red Air Force flight testing of the Me 262.
J-85 In purely theoretical terms, the added power of the J-85 should give the new production Me 262s a speed advantage of at least 75 miles per hour over any previous generation Me 262.

The fact remains that the airframe was never designed to handle the stress loads encountered at speeds in the 600 mile per hour range. To push the aircraft into this environment simply because additional power "happens to be available" is a highly dangerous and ill-advised move.

In the interest of safety, the Me 262 Project will be placing a placarded airspeed limitation upon the jets in the vicinity of 500 MPH. The official position of the project is that there is simply no need -- or benefit -- in flying these aircraft any faster.
tenmmike.NOTE the j-85 is a american engine to be used in the replica 262...they have been seriously detuned to be closer to the jummo, even though they weigh less than .5 but as reliable as any modern engine

U.S INFANTRY 84-91

Message Edited on 09/29/0304:53PM by tenmmike

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 01:54 AM
Blottogg wrote:
- Tagert, where did you find this report? We found it
- while data diving with the historian back at NAIC
- (National Air Intelligence Center)

It was a copy I made about 8 years ago of a book I found on the Me262. It was included in the book as an attatment. I found it odd that it was by an agency called the NAIC instead of the typical NACA. The drawings in the book are great too, lots of neat stuff. I need to scan it all in and make a PDF out of it one of these days.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:01 AM
Excellent post, let me note that the J85 engines powering
the new Me-262s have twice the thrust, they are a bit lighter and have a
life measured in the tens of thousands of hours instead
of the tens of hours.

The J85s in question have had their after burners (re heat)
removed, but they are not "de tuned".

The Me-262 was all wrong for supersonic flight. The fuselage
was at it's thickest at the wing root (very bad), the wings
are swept but they are thick. In cross section they
are similar to the Bf-109. The engine fairings are also
wrong, a quick look at a B-58 Hustler will give you a look
at the correct arrangment for podded engines at supersonic speeds.
I agree the structure was also too weak, but this is not
the primary shortcoming.
The lack of a flying tail is the last obvious nail in the coffin.

The first manned plane to exceed the speed of sound may have been
the XP-86. Legend has it that George Welch exceeded the
speed of sound in a dive several days before Yeager did it
with the Bell X1. Yeager was first to do it in level flight.

The XP-86 was absolutely capable of supersonic flight in a dive
and it was controlable, it is well documented. And it was
a jet with full armament! (guns were in place but no ammo).

Look at an F-86/P-86 and compare to a Me-262.
F-86 has more power, thinner wings (swept 35 deg), and the fuselage
was much thinner at the wing root. The engine intake was
at the front negating the drag of podded engines.
The F-86 was also heavier, very important in a dive.

The F-86 was structurally built like the proverbial
brick outhouse.

IMO The Me-262 could not survive a supersonic flight.

As to the Wrights being first to fly, NO they were not. What
they did was to be the first to fly a manned heavier than air
flying machine in CONTROLED FLIGHT.
They were first, but others were close and may have achieved
some limited ballistic hops, but NOT sustained controled
flight. The wrights managed to fly the same basic design
as the first flyer for in excess of 1.5 hours.
They WERE first.

MR.

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 06:35 AM
Mr-Awesome wrote:
- the primary shortcoming.
- The lack of a flying tail is the last obvious nail
- in the coffin.

Funny you should mention that.. in that I didnt realise this.. and it seems odd.. but the Me262 had elevator trim.. And it could also move the whole elevator.. Why both, not real sure.. Not sure Im reading it correctly either /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif But it does imply that from the docement. The X1 I belive the whole tail moved relitve to stick movments... where as this Im reading about the Me262 seems to be only trim.. but the whole tail.

- The first manned plane to exceed the speed of sound
- may have been
- the XP-86. Legend has it that George Welch exceeded
- the
- speed of sound in a dive several days before Yeager
- did it
- with the Bell X1. Yeager was first to do it in level
- flight.

Ah.. that seems to be the definition.. level flight.

- IMO The Me-262 could not survive a supersonic
- flight.

Agreed.. just found it interesting.. They way they wrote about it kind of made it sound like that.. But then again Im not hip to the whole test pilot lingo.. So mabye it was common to talk about excding the speed of sound with regards to air flow around points of the aircraft.



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 07:08 AM
tenmmike am adding this to my abve post here is a follow on to the jumo and j85 engine ..............JUMO In aircraft applications, engine power is characteristically measured in terms of thrust versus weight. The Jumo 004 was typical of early jet engines in that it was rather heavy, and not especially efficient.

Production model 004s produced 1,980 lbs. of thrust, and weighed in at about 1,800 lbs. Because of this, the engines were not extraordinarily effective at low airspeeds or altitudes or at reduced power settings.

Long takeoff rolls (>3,000') were evidence of this phenomenon and, once aloft, power management became critical. Abrupt throttle changes or rapid maneuvering often resulted in a flameout, or worse, a complete compressor failure.
J-85 Each J-85 produces 2,850 lbs. of thrust, yet weighs only 395 lbs. In simpler terms, the new engines offer nearly twice the power for less a quarter of the Jumo's weight penalty.

The design dynamics of the Jumo engine castings are expected to reduce the thrust available by about 300 lbs. per engine. Our current engineering estimates call for an actual power output in the vicinity of 2400-2500 lbs. per engine.

Integration of the J-85 will bring many noticeable improvements. Takeoff distances will be significantly shortened (<2,000'), and time-to-climb rates vastly improved. Also, the J-85 responds well to varying power demands [including low power settings) and is highly tolerant of the kind of airflow disruptions that gave the Jumo such difficulty


U.S INFANTRY 84-91

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 09:19 AM
To the original post:
The speed of the aircraft at which the airflow over some parts of that aircraft first reaches the speed of sound is called Critical Mach (Mach Crit). Most of the time it happens at the point of maximum thicknes of the wing.
The aircraft itself is still travelling at a subsonic speed.
Consequences:
Formation of a shockwave giving lots of drag
Airflow separation > Shock stall
High speed buffet onset
Control effectiveness reduced or totally ineffective (specially elevators, due to turbulent airflow and shocwave)
Mach tuck: Aircraft dives by itself > increasing the speed further.
This is why modern hi speed aircraft have thin wings, swept wings (higher Mcrit), high tail (elevators) or no tail (concorde). Fuselage must also abide by the transsonic area rule (coke bottle shape (mig 21)and small frontal area.)

fluke39
09-30-2003, 09:52 AM
Cragger wrote:
- Charles 'Chuck' Yeager gets the honor of being the
- first to break the speed of sound simply because the
- instruments and recording devices along with eye
- witnesses where there to authenticate the event.
-
- It much along the lines why the Wright Brothers are
- honored with the first powered heavier than air
- flight. Even though Maxim's steam powered biplane
- lifted off its tether rail even when it wasn't
- suppose to.
-
- And there was also a canadian that had a bat wings
- glider design powered by a small steam engine that
- has been claimed by several witnesses as having
- flown before the wright brothers. And even a
- historical commitee recreated the aircraft from the
- blueprints and powered it with a small equivalent
- power gasonline engine and it flew.
-
-

hmm very interesting cragger /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

o and to hopperfly - if i saw something go up 10 meters and fly 20 meters - i would have said it flew.

oh and olaleier - like the sig man!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center><img src=http://mysite.freeserve.com/Angel_one_five/flukelogo.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 05:46 PM
EFG_Zeb wrote:
- To the original post:
- The speed of the aircraft at which the airflow over
- some parts of that aircraft first reaches the speed
- of sound is called Critical Mach (Mach Crit). Most
- of the time it happens at the point of maximum
- thicknes of the wing.

That must be the case here than.. Thanks to all you guys! I learned alot here! Never realised.. Actully never gave it much thought until now... So.. Where there other aircraft taht noticed this? I mean the lose of control followed by the regaining of control once that point exceded the speed of sound? I read somewhere years ago abouta P47 posiably breaking the speed of sound.. It must have been anther case of this.. ie certain points...

So.. is it safe to assume that the effect works in reverse? ie when you start slowing down you will loose control when you near that point? I assume that it is the case.. but you know what they say when you ASSuME /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
09-30-2003, 07:05 PM
The airflow around the 262 maybe supersonic but that doesn't mean that is a true supersonic aircraft. If that were true then the Me-163 "Comet" and the even the Boeing 747 would be a true supersonic aircraft. Airflow over the aircraft is erelevent, the total aircraft speed is what should be used to judge if an aircraft is really supersonic.

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 01:42 PM
Here is the real story about the sound barrier and the ME 262s:


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



S!

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 10:32 PM
Manos1 wrote:
-
- Here is the real story about the sound barrier and
- the ME 262s:


WOW! Thanks Manos1! So.. it looks like my gut reaction to that pasage on page 13 was not too far off! WOW! Thanks!



<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 10:55 PM
I think the first aircraft to beat the sound barrier was the V-2 rocket.




Luckyboy = senior hydraulic landing gear designer for the P-11

XyZspineZyX
10-03-2003, 11:40 PM
didnt the guys in mustangs do powered dives also
they where very high up..
its passing mach1 and surviving, thats the toughy /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
10-05-2003, 07:16 PM
LuckyBoy1 wrote:
- I think the first aircraft to beat the sound barrier
- was the V-2 rocket.

Think Again! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<div style="background:#222222;color:#e0e0e0;font-size:24px;font-weight:bold;font-face:courier;"> TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?
</div>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2003, 05:14 AM
Th4e very first Aircraft to break the speed of sound on a constant basis was any Japaneses Aircraft....



..........Just before it hit the water, short of its intended target....


:>)