Wikiposts
Search
Aviation History and Nostalgia Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.

The Sound Barrier

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 19th Jun 2002, 23:03
  #21 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,520
Received 1,656 Likes on 759 Posts
Don't worry. We made up for it by giving the nene jet engine to the Russians!!
ORAC is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2002, 18:30
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: West Sussex UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
M52

The M52 has fascinated me for some time (I even built a crude FS5 model of it). I think there was a C4 program entirely on that subject a couple of years ago, with much the same footage as the J. Clarkson program.
Even though the evidence is compelling that the M52 incorporated the all-flying tailplane long before Bell 'invented' it, I doubt Chuck or any other US authority is likely to accept it publicly. I suppose it is possible Bell arrived at the same solution independently without benefit of the Miles data? The answer lies in the Bell archives
I wonder what the Smithsonian have to say about it?
macky42 is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2002, 21:46
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Here we have the typical...the Yanks stole us blind...ideas, when in actual fact, the guys at Muroc had nearly ALL the right answers..period.
If Brit engineering was sooooo good, why did the Brit aeroplanes keep "falling apart"?
411A is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2002, 22:05
  #24 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,520
Received 1,656 Likes on 759 Posts
If you add up the Brit aeroplanes which crashed/fell apart and then the X machines which crashed/fell apart - I think you might find a lot more holes in the high desert than in the UK.
ORAC is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2002, 02:23
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
...yes, generally due to a larger budget, and guys that were really paid to "press the envelope", Douglas D558-2, for example.
411A is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2002, 06:14
  #26 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,520
Received 1,656 Likes on 759 Posts
In which we might be in agreement. The military/companies on both sides of the atlantic were willing to press ahea. The MOD/Government backed out in the UK. It does, however, render your snde remark irrelevant.
ORAC is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2002, 08:17
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Those of you believing that anybody broke the sound barrier prior to old Chuck need to take a couple of physics and aerodynamics classes.
Bigmouth is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2002, 12:58
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Swindon, Wilts,UK
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wink

I hate to Pee on the cake chaps but I think you'll find that the Germans were the first to regularly break the sound barrier albeit with an unmanned vehicle. Ask any one who was in the South East of England or Antwerp towards the end of the war. The most unerving thing about the V2 was how the sound of the thing arrived after it had landed so to speak. The Idea of an all moving tail plane had ben theoretically postulated by German Scientists quite early on during the war. Whether it was for research on the V2 or not I can't say, but the Germans had a number of very sophisticated supersonic wind tunnels during the war. In fact the Germans had a great deal of data amassed concerning transonic and supersonic flight most of which was seized by the americans during "Operaton Paperclip" (I think)
I also seem to recall that the all moving tail plane was some what of a lucky accident. I can't remember where but in a book about the X planes I rember a quote from an engineer who said something along the lines that the original tail surfaces were conventionally arranged, however there was a provision to alter the pitch of the horizontal stabilizer using screwjacks. After a number of transonic flights it was found that the pilots were unable to hold the forces by hand so a modification was made to allow the stabilizer to be moved in flight. This was found to work so well that the elevators were locked off and the screw jacks used for control at all times. I'll see if I can find the source to back this up.
Windy Militant is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2002, 20:55
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: West Sussex UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Doubt that Miles had the German data to hand when they designed the M52 in 1943...
Neither Bell nor Miles 'invented' the all-flying tail, they were used on some WW1 aircraft. The point is that Miles anticipated the benefit of using it on a transonic aircraft, and specified it from the outset. How Bell arrived at the solution is also not really the point, but they didn't apply it first and credit should be given where due (imho).
macky42 is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2002, 22:46
  #30 (permalink)  

Iconoclast
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Who moved their tail first?

I never got close to a V-2 but I did work on the Redstone, which was developed from the V-2. The Redstone and I assume the V-2 as well was steered by carbon vanes (4) which projected into the rocket exhaust. These vanes depending on which were used could place the V-2 / Redstone on the proper target azimuth, the proper roll pattern and then control the ballistic trajectory. You also must understand that not only technology developed by the Germans was appropriated by the Americans (and Russians) they got the top engineering staff from both the missile and aircraft development programs so if the Germans had developed the technology it would most likely be applied by the Americans. So the question still remains who really did develop the controllable tail plane? After all the British got some of the technology as well.

Lu Zuckerman is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2002, 22:49
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Oshkosh, WI
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So far I have just seen statements: "Miles invented the all-flying tail" or "No they didn't, Bell did".

Can anyone direct me to books or websites that might have some research on this debate?
I have control is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2002, 00:50
  #32 (permalink)  

Iconoclast
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Shake your bootie=Move your tail

This article was taken from a website about the X-1 series of test aircraft. It alludes to previous research which dictated the use of a controllable horizontal stabilizer but it does not state who did the research.

"The Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, Hampton, Va., designed the instrumentation requirements for the craft, which included rate-of-turn recorders, pressure-distribution orifices on the wings and tail and pedal-force transmitters, as well as other data-gathering devices. From research acquired during earlier tests, the committee proposed installing a movable horizontal stabilizer. This element became crucial when Ship No. 1 reached Mach .94 and its elevators lost their effectiveness. So important was the all-movable horizontal stabilizer that virtually every transonic and supersonic aircraft since that time has had one".

Lu Zuckerman is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2002, 11:13
  #33 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: By the big Teapot
Posts: 333
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Although the point of who invented, (or came upon), the all moving tailplane has always been a contentious subject I have a feeling that this is one of those subjects that their will never be a definative answer to. The German wartime researchers were working on jet and rocket aircraft through many companies and following many paths but nearly all these projects were designed to operate at high subsonic speeds. I guess this is because there really was no practical need to attempt to push on to supersonic speeds because of the opposition they were facing. They were, after all designing warplanes to reverse a very dire situation. However, this is not to say that research may have concluded that an all-moving tailplane would not have existed in records captured by US forces at the end of the war. The most advanced German supersonic project was the DFS346 but this fell into the hands of the Russians. There's no doubt that Miles did fly their all-moving tailplane and that the research was sent to the US by the Attlee government. Evidence seems to indicate that Bell may have stumbled on the same answer following practical problems with the X1 project. My theory, for what it's worth, is that in fact a number of people hit on the solution and...a). The Germans probably hit on the solution at about the same time as Miles but ran out of time to persue it. b) The British had their project ruined by the usual lack of money/idiot political interference. But c) The US had the funds and the drive to push through their project.

Spiney
Spiney Norman is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2002, 11:21
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Longitude East 114 degrees
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bigmouth:

It's general knowledge now and freely admitted by all who know that as far as the USA scene is concerned your Chuck was second. George Welsh was first. One does not need lessons in physics and aerodynamics (as you suggest) to hear a sonic boom or observe windows rattling. Sometimes simple things spell out the truth.

Prince of Dzun
Prince of Dzun is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2002, 15:29
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Oshkosh, WI
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Spiney Norman

I agree with your conculsions.

Prince of Dzun

I'm not sure about yours. If rattling windows and loud noise were evidence of supersonic flight then the sound barrier was broke long before 1947...
I have control is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2002, 05:47
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Longitude East 114 degrees
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have control:

You miss the point. The attempt was announced and it arrived on time. It was not a case of rattling windows as a result of something like a botched noise abatement or low level aerobatics. George Wells should have the credit.

Prince of Dzun
Prince of Dzun is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2002, 23:30
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
IHC, you asked for references? There's a very interesting history of Miles called 'Wings over Woodley' which has some relevant bits of info IIRC. Also much of the local knowledge still extant can be found in or via the aviation museum just on the edge of the old Woodley airfield. http://www.bigwig.net/museumofberkshireaviation/mba.htm
and http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~snqfree/ for further links.
hope this helps a little bit...
overfly is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2002, 08:05
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Prince, If itīs the first time out how do you know what a sonic boom is and what it sounds like?
Bigmouth is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2002, 11:13
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Longitude East 114 degrees
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bigmouth:

If you happened to be sitting in a bar and a loud explosion type noise suddenly occurred and the windows rattled wouldn't you turn to your companions and say " what's that?" They wouldn't be able to tell you but later when the facts came out they (and you) would realise it was associated with Geroge Welsh's flight and that same noise would then be known as a sonic boom. Easy enough to understand -!! What isn't so easy to understand is why people refuse to accept something that is so obvious. You have my reasons for giving the credit to George Welsh so how about you spelling out your reasons for denying him. Any other deniers please feel free to speak up.

Prince of Dzun
Prince of Dzun is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2002, 14:51
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Oshkosh, WI
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Prince of Dzun

Intrigued by your posts about George Welch potentially breaking the sound barrier before Chuck Yeager I got my hands on the book "Aces Wild" by Al Blackburn, which seems to be the main source of this story.

The book is written in a style which does not inspire confidence in its historical accuracy: for example extensive "conversations" between leading players in the story are quoted extensively in a verbatim fashion, when the author is obviously making them up based upon what he imagines was said. Throughout the book the author demonstrates a clear bias towards the work of North American Aviation (who he once worked for) and this seems to cloud his judgement of historical sources.

Despite the hyperbole on the dustjacket, the book does not actually contain any evidence that Welch flew through the sound barrier before Yeager, other than pure hearsay. Indeed, the people that Blackburn actually bothered to speak to told him that Welch did not do it.

It does seem clear from the book that Welch actually went through the sound barrier several months before he "officially" did, but he did it after Yeager.

I think a lot of people (including Blackburn) would like Yeager to have been second because they don't like Yeager's personality style, but on the evidence of this book I don't believe it happened.
I have control is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.