Yeager wasn't the first.

[onthebeach]

George Welch (another civilian test pilot) was the first man to break the sound barrier.

Judge the evidence for yourself:

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Welch2.html

At the end of the article, the author gives an address you can write to give George Welch his due. I would ask that everyone do so. Maybe an unjustice that's been covered over for almost sixty years can be corrected.

 

[AirBadger]

Thanks for the link. Never knew the whole story 'til now.

Imagine the embarresment, a practical fighter jet breaking the sound barrier before Bell's XS-1. No wonder they made sure Yeager took the credit.

 

[Murdoughnut]

What?! A government cover up!? I refuse to believe it! God bless America! Freakin' liberal commie nut job! (waves tiny American flag)

 

[Murdoughnut]

All joking aside, my hat goes off to the guy.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Consider this:

Welch may have broken the sound barrier, but he did it on his own accord and without the structured scientific method. Contrary to "The Right Stuff" Yeager didn't just show up and do one flight to Mach 1. There were several testing flights done before hand.

Experimental test flying is slow and deliberate. Test pilots aren't the Hollywood types as advertised. They can be more geek scientist.

In addition, what were the true criteria for breaking the sound barrier? Straight and level flight? Or a dive from altitude?

And that maybe the problem. I've rumors that a P-51 broke the sound barrier during WWII.

The Germans lost. Maybe if they won we'd hear about a Mach 1 flight in a Me 163 or Me 262.

The point? The Oct 14, 1947 Bell X-1 Mach 1 flight was the first intentional, controlled and scientificly verified flight.

If you open the door to the F-86, then the door is open for anyone else to make thier own claim.

 

[Metro752]

Says they measured Welch's flight on radar, that's scientific enough for me.

 

[Papps]

I read about that somewhere a while back. I guess his A/S indicator hung up right where it should have as the shock wave moved over the static, then shot up a bunch of knots. I would believe it, F-86s would routinely reach >1.0M in later years. and yeah i think yeager is a retard.

 

[AirBadger]

I've rumors that a P-51 broke the sound barrier during WWII.

Prop planes can't break the sound barrier because the prop starts spinning so fast it basically becomes a giant disc in front of the airplane.

 

[Papps]

Yeah i saw an equation for a P-38 to get through transonic flight. Somehow they figured out horsepower required even in a vertical dive, and it was some unattainable huge number. I dont think any of the the prop claims were legit.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Prop planes can't break the sound barrier because the prop starts spinning so fast it basically becomes a giant disc in front of the airplane.

Hence the brick wall.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0031b.shtml

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-445/ch4-1.htm

These are specially designed propellers, not a P-51 prop.

If Welch did it, maybe a P-51 did it too.... maybe not.... Then again maybe he did. But perhaps.....he did not

Says they measured Welch's flight on radar, that's scientific enough for me.

Was the radar calibrated properly? What were the radars limitations? I am not saying Welch did not go Mach 1.


Then perhaps this is enough for you too...

HEINRICH BEAUVAIS: One pilot, a man called Mutke, thought he had passed the speed of sound. But the plane had problems at high speed. It was damaged by buffeting. The rivets popped out and the skin on the fuselage buckled. So, I don't believe it, and neither did the experts.

Since you are not an expert, you can choose to believe it too....

Judge the evidence for yourself:

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Welch2.html

At the end of the article,

Not sure if this is evidence or just an article designed to convince readers based on non scientific, non clonclusive information.

Is it an article or a scientific document that concludes without question the results?



Without controlled scientific methodology and results the arguements are endless.