Me 262 went supersonic in 1944?

[Dunserving]

Thanks for the information?

I see unsufficient amount of resources assigned for long-term memory

So you don't learn Basic Irony in your schools then!

[Topspeed]

Are you trying to tell us that you and Topspeed 100 on that site are not one and the same person?

Where did you draw this conclusion ?

[Sid Guttridge]

How on earth did this topic get to 19 pages in the complete absence of any hard evidence to support the original proposition?

This is a History forum, not a Fantasy forum.

[Piotr Mikołajski]

How on earth did this topic get to 19 pages in the complete absence of any hard evidence to support the original proposition?

It's quite easy - most people were patient enough to try to explain that Me 262 could not reach supersonic speed.

[Topspeed]

How on earth did this topic get to 19 pages in the complete absence of any hard evidence to support the original proposition?

This is a History forum, not a Fantasy forum.

The reason is simple;

I assumed that the writer in finnish aviation magazine was a professional jet pilot and Blue 1 chief pilot Pauli Perttula...as it was written so in the text.

I called FAF chief ( ret ) test pilot about it and he saisd nonsense...mach 0.84 tops...and btw he said...the story had the author written wrong...he was Pertti Perttula instead of Pauli Perttula...writer is no pilot...so he/author assumed the Motke knew what he was talking about... I naturally tought when man of that stature writes about jets he knows it for sure ( not knowing the author's name was wrong ).

I just argued all weak facts showed here and neglected the harder evidence...like that 660 mph is needde to go mach 1 and actually Me 262 meter only shows speeds to 1000 km/h. etc.

[JTG]

So .. Topspeed,

should this thread now be closed?

You have not proved your conjecture.

Can we now end this argument?

[Topspeed]

No I think this can be an open case...

I mean several weak powered jets like F-86 and Folland Gnat did go super sonic in a dive.

No one seems to be also able to prove that Motke was 100 % wrong in his claim...problem is that there is no hard evicence only likely evidence that he did go super sonic...at least the planes surfaces were clearly supersonic.

[Ironmachine]

...at least the planes surfaces were clearly supersonic.

So they left behind the rest of the aircraft, that was subsonic?
You mean the the air flow around the aircraft, not the plane's surfaces....

[Dunserving]

No I think this can be an open case...

I mean several weak powered jets like F-86 and Folland Gnat did go super sonic in a dive.

No one seems to be also able to prove that Motke was 100 % wrong in his claim...problem is that there is no hard evicence only likely evidence that he did go super sonic...at least the planes surfaces were clearly supersonic.

This is not an open case.

The performance of the F-86 and the Gnat is utterly irrelevant. Both were designed to cope with the stresses of transonic flight. The Gnat could, as a result do M0.95 in level flight. To describe it as "weak powered" really is not on. Try comparing the thrust/weight ratios of all three aircraft.

At least you recognise that there is no hard evidence that Motke went supersonic. However, you still claim that there is "likely evidence" that he did. You have not given any evidence at all, and the reality is that the aircraft was not capable of it. Structurally it could not cope with it, even in a dive. You have had all the detail given to you over and over again - complete proof that the airframe could not do it. It is reasonable to accept that Motke reached M0.85, that he got into Mach Tuck, that he experienced the effects of transonic flight and even the effects of localised supersonic airflow over a subsonic airframe. But that is as far as it goes.

The comment from JTG is entirely appropriate.

[Sid Guttridge]

This is NOT an open case.

This is proposition about which there is not only no hard evidence, but which is circumstantially unlikely as well.

It is therefore a case that has never even been opened.

As such, it is not worthy of serious attention.

[Piotr Mikołajski]

As such, it is not worthy of serious attention.

I agree. If aerodynamics is not the hardest evidence, then further disscussion makes no sense.

[Topspeed]

As such, it is not worthy of serious attention.

I agree. If aerodynamics is not the hardest evidence, then further disscussion makes no sense.

Why what makes the aerodymics of the plane so bad that it cannot reach the speed of DC-8 in a dive ?...scroll and see that DC-8 and VC-10 went supersonic !!!

Why does the handbook say " when the speed of sound has been exceeded the control is regained " ? This refers to me to be faster than mach 0.85 !!

Tell me how is DC-8 better equipped for supersonic than Me-262 ?

http://www.dc-8jet.com/0-dc8-sst-flight.htm

http://www.dc8.org/library/supersonic/index.php

I mean the Me-262 had thinner wing foil than DC-8...thn tell me what is the aerodynamical feature Me-262 was missing to go Mach 1...if you deny it on basis of aerodynamics ?

[Ome_Joop]

How fast could the Me-262a1c go (it's the newly built with J85 engines)?

[Dunserving]

How fast could the Me-262a1c go (it's the newly built with J85 engines)?

Those who have flown the newly built replicas are well aware that being identical the new ones suffer from the same problems as the wartime ones. Hence, being advised not to exceed Vne!!!!!!!!!!! And being warned that if they do they are becoming test pilots as they are going into the unknown!!!!!!!!!!

The new ones would indeed go faster - in theory - due to the increased power of the J85, but, mach tuck and structural failure will rear their ugly heads first. Just as they did in 1944................

[Dunserving]

As such, it is not worthy of serious attention.

I agree. If aerodynamics is not the hardest evidence, then further disscussion makes no sense.

Why what makes the aerodymics of the plane so bad that it cannot reach the speed of DC-8 in a dive ?...scroll and see that DC-8 and VC-10 went supersonic !!!

Why does the handbook say " when the speed of sound has been exceeded the control is regained " ? This refers to me to be faster than mach 0.85 !!

Tell me how is DC-8 better equipped for supersonic than Me-262 ?

http://www.dc-8jet.com/0-dc8-sst-flight.htm

http://www.dc8.org/library/supersonic/index.php

I mean the Me-262 had thinner wing foil than DC-8...thn tell me what is the aerodynamical feature Me-262 was missing to go Mach 1...if you deny it on basis of aerodynamics ?

In spite of all that has been done to try to help you, you still come out with this nonsense. Your question shows you still do not have the faintest idea.

The DC-8 and the VC10 were a later generation of aircraft design and by then the problems of local compressibility were well understood. Careful design ensured that the structure was suitably stressed to cope with the aerodynamic forces in transonic flight, mach tuck was designed out, Vne was high enough, and the design was such that there were no areas where the airflow was so markedly higher than true airspeed, and they knew how to design accurate speed measuring instrumentation. Perhaps an even better example is the design of the wing of the Handley Page Victor......