First Through The "Sound Barrier"!?!?

[The Inspector]

Did my statements about the D-558-1/-2 vs. the F-100 help answer your question? The additional info was partially personal opinion (which I understand hasn't been legislated away from me yet) and some fill in background about the interim experimental aircraft and the personalities involved. The F-100 scared the crap out of NACA and the industry because here was a series produced front line aircraft that just about any 23 year old 1st Looie could be trained to fly, and it was close to equalizing the performance of their 'GEE-WHIZ' rocket planes.
Personally, I wouldn't know a 'Snooki'(whatever that is) if I ran it over.

[bipe215]

Bill Bridgeman's book 'The Lonely Sky' is great reading about his time as the world's fastest pilot with Douglas and the Skyrocket.

Steve

[eagle21]

For those who loathe Yeager, there's comfort in that the achievement did not count as an internationally recognised speed record with the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) because the X-1 was not a self-launched aircraft capable of taking off and getting the record in the same flight, a base requirement for such pure speed (not the barrier) aeronautical records.

Hi JDK. I'm interested in this point, did the FAI changed the rules afterwards, like they did for Gagarine? I mean, in Gagarine case they had to be changed to accommodate the fact that going to space isn't really the same has flying a plane. Maybe something akin to this happened with the X1? I don't know, just asking.

If I am not mistaken (frequently am!) the FAI assumed that Gagarin rode the capsule to the ground, similar to the American program. It was not commonly known until the 1990's that he parachuted out of the capsule before it hit the ground. If it had been, I think that would have impacted the "official" recording. Naturally, the old Soviet Union did not do much to dispel anyone's mistaken assumptions. At least that is what I remember from books I have read, and not intended to take away anything from Gagarin-regardless of how he hit the earth he was the first person to orbit it.

JMC
(open to corrections!)

[Nathan]

I will still hold Welch as a firm credible source. It has nothing to do with the vile dislike others hold against CY. Just facts. Just because CY did it first publicly doesn't mean he was the first.

[The Inspector]

That's certainly true, it's been proved that my Norse forebearers were here a LLLLOOONNNGGG time before that other guy from Italy. And there's evidence that the Chinese may have been visitors to the West Coast before that. Keep that in mind the next time you find yourself in Ohio towards the end of the second week in October-

[JDK]

JMC, the link that rreis provided seems to confirm what you've stated.

I will still hold Welch as a firm credible source. It has nothing to do with the vile dislike others hold against CY. Just facts. Just because CY did it first publicly doesn't mean he was the first.

Did you read the post I made earlier regarding why the recording of an event is important? Let's be clear, the belief in Welch's reasonable claim is not supported by adequate data to make it an undisputed fact - you may choose to believe it, however that is an act of faith, not based on proofs, and not fact.

As to the first internationally recognised FAI record, IIRC a legitimate speed record has to include an averaged speed over several runs in opposing directions to negate any directional advantages. So any contender has to have made several runs on the one flight. Secondly the 'barrier' isn't recognised milestone in terms of speed records as such (partly as it's density altitude variable) so the relevant air speed records will be simply for a speed exceeding the sound barrier's zone.

Regards,

[jmkendall]

When I was a detective I dealt with evidence and proof.

We could not always prove that a murder had occurred, but we often had lots of evidence. At the end of the day, no matter the lack of proof, we still had a db.

JDK says it is a reasonable argument,but not proven. And if proven would still not be official due to the regulations of the body that oversees these records.

I think that is the most reasonable thing I have seen on this subject.

I don't agree with those that call this "at best a good story". No; at best this is an unverified truth.

As for Science types not knowing the capabilities of a Hawkins rifle....Ohhhh I could tell you stories of the Engineers I have worked with. Like the Nuclear Engineer that did not recognize that his 65 Ford Mustang had a broken fuel line...despite the pool of fuel under his car. Or the ME with a Doctorate that did not believe that the Lunar landings had actually occurred. Or the research PE's that wanted to design a 10k plus device....that failed and was replaced ( by yours truly) by a $1.98 2x4. Believe it or not when I went to Engineering School at OSU we really did not have a class, or even a module on Hawkins rifles...seriously! And even if the effective range had been well known, and accepted, then well...in a generation brought up on modern optics......open sights at ranges over 500 meters?

And Proof? As a nod to The Inspector ( my fellow 67N), it was PROVED, a hundred years ago, that the Kennsington Stone was a fake. Modern scholarship has now proved it was not a fake.

So you just never know...

[Ploesti]

Did you read the post I made earlier regarding why the recording of an event is important? Let's be clear, the belief in Welch's reasonable claim is not supported by adequate data to make it an undisputed fact - you may choose to believe it, however that is an act of faith, not based on proofs, and not fact.

As to the first internationally recognised FAI record, IIRC a legitimate speed record has to include an averaged speed over several runs in opposing directions to negate any directional advantages. So any contender has to have made several runs on the one flight. Secondly the 'barrier' isn't recognised milestone in terms of speed records as such (partly as it's density altitude variable) so the relevant air speed records will be simply for a speed exceeding the sound barrier's zone.

Regards,

As much as I am not a fan of the way this fellow JDK expresses himself on this website at times, I do have to give him credit for doing his research on subjects I and I'm sure many others here have no time or interest for. I can thank him for putting in his time. I would have to agree with his argument in this conversation.