The MiG 15 that defected from Korea after the war that the USAF museum has on display almost killed Yeager when he tried this very thing as the controls froze and he was going down only his chopping the throttle and employing the airbrakes saved him. The irony was No Kum- sok (Kenneth H. Rowe) the defecting pilot warned that the MiG was incapable of going supersonic as the controls was not boosted as like the then new MiG-17 that was just entering service with the USSR. That might be another defecting story you could look into is his, as he was scared to death that the UN forces was going to shoot him down before landing, lucky for him that the bases radar was off line and he landed the wrong way against the landing pattern on the airstrip at Kimpo. The other thing was he had no idea that the UN and US forces was offering a $100,000 reward to any MiG-15 pilot to defect to the south and so he got that money to start his life in the US when he became a naturalized US citizen in 1954.
@@acookiegimme4894 that man RISKED HIS LIFE to get the possibility of a better live over the border. Yes, he should be rewarded with a better life. Yes, he should be reguarded as a hero in his own right. He deserves it more than you do obviously.
Commercial planes with tail winds exceed “super sonic” on a routine basis. (Only exceeding the speed of sound as a ground speed, still moving slower than the speed of sound in the local air.). I’ve been in a triple-7 that flew this fast on its way into Dublin. Nothing notable happened apart from getting in 30 minutes early. One time while doing slow-flight training with a Cessna-172 I was able to fly backwards over the ground. Over-40 knots of head wind, and a under 40-knots of air speed. It was fun watching the world backup like that.
By the way the higher the altitude the lower mach 1 is so you should start at the highest altitude possible. Also a vertical dive may not produce the best chance at supersonic speeds because the altitude and air density change so quickly.
Worth mentioning that the indicated airspeed at mach 1 drops off a ton, but the change in TAS isn't that significant. Definitely agree that high altitude is the way to go. You're pitting thrust and gravity agianst drag, and the air density effects the drag more than the thrust. Edit: Top speed in level flight at max cruise altitude into near vertical dive gets my vote
@@michaelharris679 A gradual, slow transition into the dive might be best in order to avoid excessive drag, too. Going inverted to allow the natural lift of the arfoil to transition into that dive may help even further. Start high, get up to max speed, then go inverted and allow the plain to just naturally fall into a 60-80 degree dive is my guess for best results. Edit: Just watched the video and this is basically what cap did hahaha
The MiG-15 arguably had sufficient power to dive at supersonic speeds, but the lack of an "all-flying" tail greatly diminished the pilot's ability to control the aircraft as it approached Mach 1. As a result, pilots understood they must not exceed Mach 0.92, where the flight surfaces became ineffective.
As you increase the speed to trans sonic the lift vector moves forward on the wing. They came up with a moving stabilator to provide control. We had an ADI failure on a KC-135 that made the autopilot aggressively push the nose down. By the time the crew reacted they were through Mach 1. They were able to retard power and deploy spoilers to slow it down and regain control. They diverted to a nearby air field to change under ware.
I love how every one is going on about how the spitfire/insert WW2 fighter plane reached mach 1 or nearly did in a dive. There are lot of stories of pilots reaching mach 1 in their WW2 planes! But none of them are true, i highly doubt the spitfire even reached mach 0.9 let alone 0.96. A lot of people are forgeting the pitot tubes they used on these WW2 weren't very sofisticated and couldnt correctly read mach number. Most pitot tubes of the era couldn't even read near mach numbers correctly. Probably one of the reasons the spitfire didnt actually reach mach 1 is because any pilot that got mach 1 on their air speed indicator promptly had their plane disintigrate and died because it cant reach any where near mach speeds. Or crashed in an uncontrolable dive. People seem to think reaching mach 1 is so easy, its not really. Just look at early jets capable of mach 1.
I had my work experience in an aircraft museum, and all the volunteers were RAF engineers. One of the guys I got talking to, Alec you called him, used to build harriers and phantoms for 20 years. He actually told me there were talks of retrofitting the harriers to enable them to go supersonic right before she was decommissioned. He said there was a disagreement between the US and the UK regarding the retrofits, and then they just didn’t retrofit it. Then soon afterwards, the harrier was decommissioned and scrapped. All those guys were so cool.
For the warbirds, I believe you would (should) have better luck feathering the props (for those that can) and killing the engine as you approach Mach 1. My understanding is that as the props spin, the tips break the sound barrier before the aircraft body when they are spinning, and they stop being effective propulsion and just add drag.
Cap, there's a button in TrackIR that lets you recenter your view based on your current IRL physical position. Bind that to a hotas button or keyboard shortcut and you won't have to worry about TrackIR freezing in place anymore, you can reset it on the fly.
Loss of control, in a very simplified explanation happened when under too much speed, air molecules build up into a large compressed shape in Front of or attached to the front of the foil. This disrupts airflow over the wing and the control surfaces by putting those surfaces into slow or non moving air pockets caused by the disruption. They figured out that if they added perforated slats like in the jug or the stukka that they could cause enough drag to keep it from happening in a powered dive but even then they tended to throttle back. It wasn’t until they figured out that air was stacking up in front of the wing that they decided to start using swept wings. The swept wing allows the stacked up air to slide off towards the outside. Thats why a P51 can dive at power and briefly go Mach speeds relative to air flow and density. They didn’t have the power to get there flat and level until jet and rocket power was matched up to the correct shape (pointy and slightly larger in the front and slimming towards the middle and back. That’s when super sonic became stable and survivable for plane and pilots.
FYI, the f-86 was intended to be controllable in low Mach in a dive at altitude. Just Don't plan on being able to pull it out in any kind of a quick manner. You're going to need altitude. Another really good video guys!
I feel like the incident in question was the one that broke the trans-Atlantic record because of a crazy tail wind that allowed it to cross the ocean at faster than speed of sound ground speed... if not, I imagine it must have been a bumpy ride going transonic in that thing
I wonder why the Harrier II can't. When the module was fresh, the thing went up to 1.3 in a dive (and even 1.06ish at 40k in level flight). After a few patches it was so draggy it couldn't even reach 0.95 and then later when it was able to cross 1.0 again, it would break up somewhere around 1.03 which is just what we saw here. Devs said it's because of different wings... well, they're bigger, but I highly doubt they'd just break up like this. Another plane capable of that BTW is the A-4. The community mod A-4 can do that actually.
Look at the power to weight ratio in a hairier empty it’s almost 2 to 1 for things way like 12,500 pounds... I’m actually surprised the AVB has that much trouble breaking the sound barrier even level flight I get it drag coefficient is probably not on its side
Wave drag is one hell of a drug. AdamTheEnginerd has an excellent video on why some planes cant go super sonic even in a dive. Also if you are in college, compressible flow is a great class to take, you don't need to know much of any fluidynamics and it explains a lot about modern plane design.
A SuperMarine Spitfire, late Mk., went super sonic in a near vertical dove over the Bristol Channel just after the war. The pilot pulled back on the stick but it went into a steaper dive as the control surfaces reverse over the speed of sound. My dad told me this and he studied under Barnes Wallace at Vickers Armstrong.
It's just wrong if you are gonna dive at high speed from the spitfire your dad would have to bail out and his spitfire wings would tear off because the upcoming shockwave is massive Again only swapped wing jets can do that But for a prop like the spitfire the maximum mach for it would be at least Mach 0.89 Until the wings redlines If the speed was exceeded than it's limits
@@flak8842 - You don't need swept wings to go supersonic. Look up the Bell X-1, which Chuck Yeager flew to break the sound barrier in 1947. However, you do need sufficient thrust, and propellor planes just do not have it. ua-cam.com/video/LkjjgrAfbSU/v-deo.html
There were numerous reports of P-47Ds going supersonic in dives from near their altitude ceiling, nominally in western Europe in the winter due to the lessened air density at higher altituted. It'd be interesting to see if you could recreate it.
I used to do it with the P-47D in Jane’s WWII Combat Flight Simulator back in the day 😂 no booms, but you could check airspeed and the numbers when driving from 30k ft could get into the high 600s too low 700s
0:18 i couln´t find any info at all about an a380 going supersonic, just a Quora site saying that "it would be possible" for it to go supersonic since its cruise speed is 900km/h and its maximun speed is mach 0.89. Does anyone has a link to a news site or a report or something? Literally 6 seconds after he adressed this. I should be more patient god dammit.
As a bunch of people have said higher alt will make a big difference. I found in war thunder it was easier to get some of the sub sonic aircraft supersonic if I kept them up high using a more shallow dive instead of getting into the thicker atmosphere so quickly.
As usual, an excellent and fun video. The F-86 (even the A model) could go supersonic in a dive, but it had control problems. The E model added the flying tail, which gave it better control at Mach 1+. The MIG-15 couldn't (as you found out) exceed something like Mach 0.96 or so adn would either be uncontrollable or break up. The Mach 1+ dive was one of the biggest advantages that the F-86 had over the MIG-15 in the Korean War.
My uncle has told me loads of stories of sonic booms coming from the former RAF Waterbeach, this is back when it was a major player in QRA. At that time there were Meteors, Javelins, Vampires as well as the American counterparts. If you can get over the compress ability issues that occur near the speed of sound then putting it in a shallow dive at full whack should produce something, whether it be a sonic boom or a hole in the ground. There is also the issue if causing the engine to flame out as these engines could not cope with super sonic airflow. Its an interesting question and one that will be a lot of fun to find out.
I was under the impression that the F86 and the MiG 15 were onsidered transonic fighters, they flew subsonic most of the time but every now and then some poor pilot would push things too far and go supersonic in certain maneuvers. Usually the controls wouldn't work after that. I'm pretty sure that there were times in which WWII fighter aircraft (the Spitfire being one) were also taken to the edge of mach 1, either in extreme maneuvers or even in test conditions to see what would happen (to see if the physics/reports bore out). I think even a p38 did it during a dive in combat and the canopy blew out because of it.
This reminds me of the A-12 pilot who was at Mach 2.7 and couldn't get it to 3 so he pitched a few hairs below 0 and then it shot out to 3+ and redlined all the gauges and for 15 seconds, the Mach reading was 3.56 and they were never able to get there again. Just a freak thing. Had alot to do with pockets of hot air and cold air.
Hi chaps The main driver for Mach is actually temperature change (or lapse rate) not so much airflow. So if you get a significant temperature change the local Mach will change dramatically. wind is a factor but it has to change a lot and quickly to make mach change. Additionally the turbulence involved is quite significant when temperature changes of even as little as 4 degrees occur at altitude. Additionally as you descent in the dive your local mach will actually decrease as the air temp increases making it harder to hit mach 1. This is why we use constant mach climb / descent above mach/IAS transition and it allows us much higher climb / descent rates in the higher levels as we chase mach not airspeed Not sure how you can fudge the temperature at altitude in DCS but we often use this in the real world level D sims to demonstrate the upset recovery techniques for overspeed scenarios.
My first squadron, VA-304 out of NAS Alameda, CA had a KA-6D hit mach 0.998 in level flight. It was stripped of bomb racks for a functional check flight. The tankers were faster than the bombers bec6they had different tailpipes that didn't induce cool air into the exhaust to help prevent infrared detection.
Aircraft like Spitfires had the strange behaviour because they bent with the loads. Main problem is the airflow over the wing goes faster than you do so reaches supersonic flow first. This produces a shockwave that blanks the elevator. They may move but they have no flow to work in. Hence the all moving tailplane. Rather than drill holes, you could have just looked at them to know. All except the Harrier which is one big flying air brake.....
There are reports of Spitfires going supersonic in dives in WW2. Of course the pilots didnt live to tell the tale but other pilots in the sky reported hearing sonic booms etc. Having said the pilots didnt survive I've got a feeling one did actually.... I will do some digging.
@@harrier827 The "Speed and altitude records" section for the Spitfire on Wikipedia has a number instance of Spitfire reaching high subsonic speeds in dives, still likely the highest speeds of any WW2 era air-frame. Combined with anecdotes like Raymond Baxter shooting at (but not hitting) a V2 as it went supersonic climbing past his Spitfire IX likely give rise to the Supersonic Spitfire urban legend. If a special research Spitfire flown by a test pilot only made it to 0.92 the idea that a war fighting spitfire could accidentally make it over the line seems optimistic.
The F-86F could and did go past Mach 1 in a shallow dive, and you could pull out using trim and the all-flying tail. The MiG-15 is a suicide mission trying to go supersonic because it does not have inferior controls compared to the F-86.
@@dodecahedron1 Let me try that again. The MiG-15 has an inferior flight control set up compared to the F-86F. That is why the MiG-15 is a potential death trap over .9 Mach.
Best way to do this would be to unload the aircraft (keep it at 0 g). That way the aircraft is not generating any lift and therefore no lift-induced drag, which should allow it to accelerate very quickly. Unloaded extention is in fact a BFM tactic.
One time I was playing FSX and I was flying a 747, and I was wondering why the autopilot wasn’t flying the plane any faster. I looked at the Mach speed. 00 (because the display was only 2 digits). I was inadvertently cruising at supersonic in a Boeing 747.
Most subsonic designs are prevented from going supersonic by compressability upon the airframe producing a subsonic critical Mach number, of the warbirds the highest achievable Mach numbers under test conditions, with pressure adjustment for correct readings was around 0.88 for the Mustang and 0.87 for the BF109 iirc and closer to something like 0.83 for the P47 and Spitfire, although these figures were higher and some were even claimed supersonic before compressability was understood and speed recordings adjusted accordingly. Propellers were destroyed during these tests since obviously their tips achieved faster Mach speed than the airframes so it's dead stick landings all round in any case. Most, but not all subsonic jets also fall into this category and have an airframe critical Mach number which simply won't physically allow supersonic flight due to compressability although some of these maybe transonic since the biggest limitation for warbirds was the propeller acting like a brick wall. Some airframes however have an imposed maximum Mach limitation whereby the aircraft is capable of going faster than the quoted maximum but will break up if you do because of instability or airframe stresses. These are straight up thrust-drag capabilities which exceed the airframe safe limitations, several or in fact most 3rd Gen Soviet fighters have this issue including the MiG21 but also so do some large, powerful multi-engine subsonics with low drag for economical purposes, so have a VNE and maximum Mach number less than the aircraft is actually capable of in level flight, but would break up if explored as it is simply a byproduct of making the airframe contribute to less fuel burn, also makes it go faster in the thrust-drag ratio yet is not designed to go there. I think VNE is about direct maximum airspeed structural limitation and maximum Mach number is about aerodynamic instability which may induce structural failure or loss of pilot control, someone correct me if I'm wrong on that. Then there are those airframes which are quite capable of supersonic flight without much risk however simply don't have the raw power in thrust-drag ratio to achieve it in level flight, which the F86 falls into. In fact many have probably already posted during the time of the Bell X1 tests several F86 pilots were routinely causing sonic booms over the airbase in shallow dives, however the experimental rocket plane was the first to do it in level flight, with scientific instrumentation on board. The Harrier is another in this category and iirc Sukhoi has also published this about the Su25, you may find however they exceed VNE very quickly in this flight condition. I think it's actually the Sea Harrier that's supersonic in a dive but not the GR version. A4 too but that often destroyed its engine in transonic dives so I can't recall if one ever got supersonic. Obviously most straight wings unless they're stubs are going to have a subsonic critical Mach number, some are prevented from operating the engine transonic due to inlet design, or have a prop reducing
+GrimReapersAtomic *Among the subsonic types available for Eagle Dynamics DCS:World,* the USMC / McDonnellDouglas AV-8B, USAF / North American F-86F, and VKSR / Sukhoi-25SM can stay in control, going supersonic in a dive. Neither the Mikojan-Gurjevich-15bis nor its improvement the MiG-17 has a stabilizer incidence control, lack of which eliminates pitch control at ≥0.93 Mach. The USAF / Fairchild Hiller A-10 has a Vne in the mid-subsonic range. And the tactical prop-planes were designed before transonic research was conducted.
The Mig15 was tested by the US and managed to hit Mach in a shallow dive, the Test Pilot could not recover the plane until it hit lower denser air and the plane slowed down
If DCS models air density accurately you probably could get every aircraft super sonic if you could start high enough, just free fall acceleration through a near vacuum until they hit the majority of the atmosphere.
i'd add some engineering to the harrier, considering it is roughly 30 something miles per hour shy of mach 1 (probably stripped bare and running on fumes). i'd add an extra engine to the rear (in a fixed position) tandem style, and then add a split tail of "black widow style elevons". Then i'd make the wings larger (and throw that stealth crap out the window). and i'd rebalance the plane by adding weight (as needed) to the front. Ex: avionics in a longer, bigger nose, a titanium bathtub for the pilot, and rounds of ammunition until the balance is at the preferred precise amount.
Apparently a later variant of the spitfire almost went supersonic when they lost control at high altitudes. The pilot said he remembers seeing those white things on the wings that signal when your almost supersonic. He managed to survive tho.
The F-86 was the first aircraft to actually go supersonic, even before the Bell X-1. Test pilot did it in 1946 or 1947 in a dive. Since it had a flying tail, it could recover. The Mig-15 couldn't go supersonic, and like the other commenters said, nearly killed Chuck Yeager. Prop planes can't go supersonic because the prop acts as a huge speed break. The first model of the Harrier (Gr.1 and AV-8A) were supersonic. When the controls stop working, it is called "compressibility". The higher a plane is, the lower the speed of sound.
It didn't The wings would tear off because it's not well angled back enough so the wings wouldn't be able to bounce that shock wave Just look for any swapped wing cold war jets and you may figure it out Try to compare the elliptical wing spitfire vs swapped back wings of any jet fighter like the wings of The Mig-17 or Mig-21 and etc If you have war thunder on your PC try to compare each of them
@@flak8842 Well for one, War thunder is hardly an accurate aerodynamics model. If you clip the wings on a MiG-17, you can achieve supersonic level flight. Swept wings are not a requirement for supersonic flight. Look at the first supersonic aircraft, the Bell X-1; It has exactly 0 wing sweep on it, it was a trapezoidal planform wing, as the engineers did not feel they knew enough about wing sweep. Faster yet, the X-3 Stiletto, the precursor to the F-104 Starfighter, neither had wing sweep. Anyway, there was a Spitfire Mk. XI that hit Mach 0.89 in a 45 degree dive. That same aircraft later hit Mach 0.92 in a dive after the rpm limiter on the engine failed. The propeller was ripped to shreds, which moved the center of gravity backwards, which put the aircraft into a climb. The G-stress knocked the pilot out, and when he came to, he was gliding at 40k feet. He managed to land back at the runway, and the wings were bent noticeably upward and backward (like a wing sweep)
Not having finished the video yet, I'll say I have forced the Su-25A past the sound barrier. It gets DAMNED close in level flight and a dive can push it over.
You need to start at a higher altitude. its extremely well known and documented that Spit's, Mustangs and P38 lightnings in emergency dives would not only brush Mach 1 but would push past. Sadly most pilots did not survive do to the buffeting on the control surfaces. you need t also realize that these battles happened above 20,000 ft not in the more dense air at 8,000 ft.
You know when the Germans have created the me-163 to fight the US B17 bombers It did fought them at 20000m if I am right Right at that altitude the me-163 can reach the sound barrier nearly at it's wings speed limit
I love how the guy who posted the suggestion was like "yeah no one knows this but an A380 definitely went supersonic, and there was definitely high altitude windshear" xD Can guarantee that whoever submitted that comment is 14 and plays FSX too much
@Mae ! That article says it wasn't actually supersonic, just had a ground speed higher than nominal mach 1 but its actual mach was normal (~0.85), which is exactly what the OP said. Whoever submitted that question has about as much "inside information" or understanding as a janitor in the pentagon would have about a next gen stealth bomber.
Can't you get up to max speed with wind in you back, then change the wind direction to a head wind? or is it just not possible to change that in-mish ?
early models of the p-47 and p-38 achieved supersonic flight...accidentally. the p-47 was in a shallow dive long enough to overspeed during testing when it went supersonic. it ripped the fabric off the tail controls and the pilot was forced to bail out. the plane was lost, but thankfully the pilot survived. the p-38 was in combat over the Europe when trying to evade 3 German fighters. pilot crammed the stick forward into a dive and of course the controls locked up. a last ditch effort with the speed breaks helped the pilot regain control of the aircraft and the plane and pilot lived to fight another day.
The P-38 was known to have a problem with locked controls at higher speeds, still nothing near the speed of sound. The P-47 is too draggy to hit the speed of sound with a radial engine
You'll need more altitudes. And you'll find that an aircraft if it doesnt designed for supersonic flight, then it will simply break all the airframe. Supersonic is not about vertical dive, but also about the aerodynamic design (wing config) till the load factor that it could sustain.
The DC-8 famously went supersonic in a shallow dive during flight testing. I wonder if modern jetliners could do the same thing, as I'm not sure if the high bypass engines will even produce thrust at supersonic speeds.
The LSS (local speed of sound) is responsible for that. At sea level with ISA conditions (1013.2 hPa, 15C) the LSS is 661knots. When you go higher, the LSS changes as the density and temperature changes. Eg at 30000 ft it’s 589 kts. This is TAS, as you instruments are displayed in IAS the value you read will be much lower. Mach = TAS/LSS
@@williamkillingsworth2619 Actually the first supersonic flight was October 14th, 1947. The first flight of the F86 was October 1st, 1947. Its quite possible that the F86 did in fact beat the X1. 🤷♂️
@@grizzlybozak Great read: theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-hans-guido-mutke-the-me-262-pilot-who-might-have-went-supersonic-two-years-earlier-than-chuck-yeager/
6 month old vid, so someone has probably commented, but real-world F-86 would go supersonic in a dive (I believe it was the first US fighter in service that would break the sound barrier, citation needed).
The ad before this video actually made me laugh out loud. That is illegal, FUCKING LIBERTY MUTUAL of all things... you ready for this? "Liberty Bibity" Sold.
There was a version of the Spitfire I believe it was the Mark XVI that reached mach .96 during testing in a dive. Read that a few weeks ago can't remember the source.
George Walsh and the Happy Bottom Riders club sure would disagree with Chuck Yeager ! If You go to the air and space museum, they say Chuck did it first ( but dont bother to say "In Level Flight". Civilian pilot George Welch is generally known to have broken the sound barrier on 1 October 1947 in an XP-86 Sabre (F-86 prototype), which was two weeks before Yeager's flight. HOWEVER it was in a dive. Yeager gets the credit for breaking Mach One in level flight (often this level flight distinction is not included in Yeager accounts). What's more, just 30 minutes before Yeager's 14 October flight, Welch did it again, in a dive. I've read that the AF succeeded in having the Welch flights' info squelched so that it could claim the record by an AF pilot. The XP-86 officially achieved supersonic speed on 26 April 1948. Welch was one of the few Army Air Force fighter pilots to get airborne at Pearl Harbor on December 7, downing or damaging at least four Japanese planes. He was a 16-kill ace by the end of WWII and in Korea as a civilian instructor he unofficially (of course) shot down several MiG-15s. He died in 1954 when his F-100A Super Sabre came apart during a Mach 1.55 pullout. Chuck Yeager was flying the chase plane.
Question: since you can design different air speeds and wind directions at different altitudes, why not just do a less steep dive with a tail wind at higher altitude and an headwind at lower altitude? This way you get the benefit of trading potential energy for kinetic and also altitude based wind shear.
Hey GR you guys should double check the f-86 going supersonic it can do it and it can pull out of the dive with rudder and elevator inputs (ailerons will do funky things) this test waa silly and fun but killing migs above 1.0 is a blast because noone thinks you can do it;]
What plane do you recommend for a beginner? I'm building a gaming PC and this is gonna be the first game I get. The two planes I'm interested in are the Harrier and the f-16. What do you recommend out of these two?
mig15 can actually go supersonic, but its basically a death trap at that point. It also does have a mach indicator at the bottom left. Also, f86 is actually a bit faster then the mig15
I've heard of a case were a spitfire went supersonic or close too ot at least the pilot was flying very high although I dont remember exactly but he got vapor to bleed off the wings whick is an indicator of supersonic unless your in like a 3rd or 5th gen fighter
You guys should do a defector series where one or two guys run in a plane of their choice and you and a gang of others planes take off a few minutes after and chase them down or try to. They would either have to make it into a neighboring country where other enemy planes are waiting to provide air cover or survive till you run out of ammo. You could always ram them tho. They are carrying Top Secret information with them that could lead to the fall of your country. 🤷🏾♂️
How do you expect there to be a vertical barrier between the wind going in opposite directions IRL? there is no such thing. What could happen is for such barrer to be horizontal. Jetstream going very fast and then the layer of slower air a bit lower. And then an aircraft moving in a jetstrean and descending into the slower air. That seems like a more possible scenario.
Detatched because the trans sonic shockwave these are responsible of your plane being broke Look if you wanna exceed the supersonic you need to find a plane that it's wing are swapped enough and an engine that can overcome this force Does make sense now ?
The MiG 15 that defected from Korea after the war that the USAF museum has on display almost killed Yeager when he tried this very thing as the controls froze and he was going down only his chopping the throttle and employing the airbrakes saved him. The irony was No Kum- sok (Kenneth H. Rowe) the defecting pilot warned that the MiG was incapable of going supersonic as the controls was not boosted as like the then new MiG-17 that was just entering service with the USSR.
That might be another defecting story you could look into is his, as he was scared to death that the UN forces was going to shoot him down before landing, lucky for him that the bases radar was off line and he landed the wrong way against the landing pattern on the airstrip at Kimpo. The other thing was he had no idea that the UN and US forces was offering a $100,000 reward to any MiG-15 pilot to defect to the south and so he got that money to start his life in the US when he became a naturalized US citizen in 1954.
WIlco thanks!
Defectors and traitors shouldn't be hold on a pedestal regardless of side, but Ok.
@@grimreapers Wilco means "Will comply" which makes absolutely no sense in that context :p
@@acookiegimme4894 that man RISKED HIS LIFE to get the possibility of a better live over the border.
Yes, he should be rewarded with a better life. Yes, he should be reguarded as a hero in his own right. He deserves it more than you do obviously.
@@acookiegimme4894 So you're saying we shouldn't reward a defector from a tyrannical regime such as North Korea?
Commercial planes with tail winds exceed “super sonic” on a routine basis. (Only exceeding the speed of sound as a ground speed, still moving slower than the speed of sound in the local air.). I’ve been in a triple-7 that flew this fast on its way into Dublin. Nothing notable happened apart from getting in 30 minutes early.
One time while doing slow-flight training with a Cessna-172 I was able to fly backwards over the ground. Over-40 knots of head wind, and a under 40-knots of air speed. It was fun watching the world backup like that.
I didn’t know they could fly at under 80mph. That’s cool
By the way the higher the altitude the lower mach 1 is so you should start at the highest altitude possible. Also a vertical dive may not produce the best chance at supersonic speeds because the altitude and air density change so quickly.
Worth mentioning that the indicated airspeed at mach 1 drops off a ton, but the change in TAS isn't that significant. Definitely agree that high altitude is the way to go. You're pitting thrust and gravity agianst drag, and the air density effects the drag more than the thrust.
Edit: Top speed in level flight at max cruise altitude into near vertical dive gets my vote
@@michaelharris679 A gradual, slow transition into the dive might be best in order to avoid excessive drag, too. Going inverted to allow the natural lift of the arfoil to transition into that dive may help even further. Start high, get up to max speed, then go inverted and allow the plain to just naturally fall into a 60-80 degree dive is my guess for best results.
Edit: Just watched the video and this is basically what cap did hahaha
Shallow dive would produce better results from higher altitude, and the condition is compressibility....reduce AOA, increase ALT
The MiG-15 arguably had sufficient power to dive at supersonic speeds, but the lack of an "all-flying" tail greatly diminished the pilot's ability to control the aircraft as it approached Mach 1. As a result, pilots understood they must not exceed Mach 0.92, where the flight surfaces became ineffective.
As you increase the speed to trans sonic the lift vector moves forward on the wing. They came up with a moving stabilator to provide control. We had an ADI failure on a KC-135 that made the autopilot aggressively push the nose down. By the time the crew reacted they were through Mach 1. They were able to retard power and deploy spoilers to slow it down and regain control. They diverted to a nearby air field to change under ware.
You guys should do another video with these aircraft but where you start at say 30,000 ft or 40,000 ft instead of like 8,000 ft 😂😋👍
Yeah I agree, air density at those low altitudes makes it hard for even jet aircraft in a straight line to go supersonic.
Harrier is capable of going mach 1.04 at 50kft clean.
Yeaaa. Upvote
A number of these aircraft can’t fly at those heights.
@@SPFLDAngler they dont need to fly at those speeds they just need to fall
I love how every one is going on about how the spitfire/insert WW2 fighter plane reached mach 1 or nearly did in a dive. There are lot of stories of pilots reaching mach 1 in their WW2 planes! But none of them are true, i highly doubt the spitfire even reached mach 0.9 let alone 0.96. A lot of people are forgeting the pitot tubes they used on these WW2 weren't very sofisticated and couldnt correctly read mach number. Most pitot tubes of the era couldn't even read near mach numbers correctly. Probably one of the reasons the spitfire didnt actually reach mach 1 is because any pilot that got mach 1 on their air speed indicator promptly had their plane disintigrate and died because it cant reach any where near mach speeds. Or crashed in an uncontrolable dive. People seem to think reaching mach 1 is so easy, its not really. Just look at early jets capable of mach 1.
Cap doesn’t realise that he is actually the sidekick.
We're on to RC alt accounts aren't cool man. 🤣
So true.
@@ClintThrust-e8r RC is an alt-right Trojan horse.
Invisible mind control - the basis of most marriages.
I had my work experience in an aircraft museum, and all the volunteers were RAF engineers. One of the guys I got talking to, Alec you called him, used to build harriers and phantoms for 20 years. He actually told me there were talks of retrofitting the harriers to enable them to go supersonic right before she was decommissioned. He said there was a disagreement between the US and the UK regarding the retrofits, and then they just didn’t retrofit it. Then soon afterwards, the harrier was decommissioned and scrapped. All those guys were so cool.
For the warbirds, I believe you would (should) have better luck feathering the props (for those that can) and killing the engine as you approach Mach 1. My understanding is that as the props spin, the tips break the sound barrier before the aircraft body when they are spinning, and they stop being effective propulsion and just add drag.
good point.
Cap, there's a button in TrackIR that lets you recenter your view based on your current IRL physical position. Bind that to a hotas button or keyboard shortcut and you won't have to worry about TrackIR freezing in place anymore, you can reset it on the fly.
thx
Loss of control, in a very simplified explanation happened when under too much speed, air molecules build up into a large compressed shape in
Front of or attached to the front of the foil. This disrupts airflow over the wing and the control surfaces by putting those surfaces into slow or non moving air pockets caused by the disruption. They figured out that if they added perforated slats like in the jug or the stukka that they could cause enough drag to keep it from happening in a powered dive but even then they tended to throttle back. It wasn’t until they figured out that air was stacking up in front of the wing that they decided to start using swept wings. The swept wing allows the stacked up air to slide off towards the outside. Thats why a P51 can dive at power and briefly go Mach speeds relative to air flow and density. They didn’t have the power to get there flat and level until jet and rocket power was matched up to the correct shape (pointy and slightly larger in the front and slimming towards the middle and back. That’s when super sonic became stable and survivable for plane and pilots.
FYI, the f-86 was intended to be controllable in low Mach in a dive at altitude. Just Don't plan on being able to pull it out in any kind of a quick manner. You're going to need altitude. Another really good video guys!
You ought to try some less than vertical dives.
It's faster this way though.
I feel like the incident in question was the one that broke the trans-Atlantic record because of a crazy tail wind that allowed it to cross the ocean at faster than speed of sound ground speed... if not, I imagine it must have been a bumpy ride going transonic in that thing
Just the quick pace of frames back and forth and just talking so casually as the planes slam into the ground. Y'all are making me roll here.
Early Harrier GR3s could actually go supersonic in a slight dive according to some pilots
I wonder why the Harrier II can't. When the module was fresh, the thing went up to 1.3 in a dive (and even 1.06ish at 40k in level flight). After a few patches it was so draggy it couldn't even reach 0.95 and then later when it was able to cross 1.0 again, it would break up somewhere around 1.03 which is just what we saw here. Devs said it's because of different wings... well, they're bigger, but I highly doubt they'd just break up like this.
Another plane capable of that BTW is the A-4. The community mod A-4 can do that actually.
Yeah I remember reading about an RAF Officer breaking the sound barrier by accident and setting off a bunch of alarms at a nearby armoury.
AstraTan do you have a link to the article?
WackoZacko15 Afraid not, it was in a book called ‘Out of the Blue’.
Look at the power to weight ratio in a hairier empty it’s almost 2 to 1 for things way like 12,500 pounds... I’m actually surprised the AVB has that much trouble breaking the sound barrier even level flight I get it drag coefficient is probably not on its side
when diving at high speeds like in spitfire tests they could not pull out of a dive until one pilot push the column forward then it pulled out
Wave drag is one hell of a drug. AdamTheEnginerd has an excellent video on why some planes cant go super sonic even in a dive. Also if you are in college, compressible flow is a great class to take, you don't need to know much of any fluidynamics and it explains a lot about modern plane design.
A SuperMarine Spitfire, late Mk., went super sonic in a near vertical dove over the Bristol Channel just after the war. The pilot pulled back on the stick but it went into a steaper dive as the control surfaces reverse over the speed of sound. My dad told me this and he studied under Barnes Wallace at Vickers Armstrong.
It's just wrong if you are gonna dive at high speed from the spitfire your dad would have to bail out and his spitfire wings would tear off because the upcoming shockwave is massive
Again only swapped wing jets can do that
But for a prop like the spitfire the maximum mach for it would be at least
Mach 0.89
Until the wings redlines If the speed was exceeded than it's limits
@@flak8842 - You don't need swept wings to go supersonic. Look up the Bell X-1, which Chuck Yeager flew to break the sound barrier in 1947. However, you do need sufficient thrust, and propellor planes just do not have it.
ua-cam.com/video/LkjjgrAfbSU/v-deo.html
There were numerous reports of P-47Ds going supersonic in dives from near their altitude ceiling, nominally in western Europe in the winter due to the lessened air density at higher altituted. It'd be interesting to see if you could recreate it.
I used to do it with the P-47D in Jane’s WWII Combat Flight Simulator back in the day 😂 no booms, but you could check airspeed and the numbers when driving from 30k ft could get into the high 600s too low 700s
Government: "We need 15 volunteers..."
lols
0:18 i couln´t find any info at all about an a380 going supersonic, just a Quora site saying that "it would be possible" for it to go supersonic since its cruise speed is 900km/h and its maximun speed is mach 0.89.
Does anyone has a link to a news site or a report or something?
Literally 6 seconds after he adressed this. I should be more patient god dammit.
You lawn-darted more times in 15 minutes than Wile E. Coyote!!
As a bunch of people have said higher alt will make a big difference. I found in war thunder it was easier to get some of the sub sonic aircraft supersonic if I kept them up high using a more shallow dive instead of getting into the thicker atmosphere so quickly.
As usual, an excellent and fun video. The F-86 (even the A model) could go supersonic in a dive, but it had control problems. The E model added the flying tail, which gave it better control at Mach 1+. The MIG-15 couldn't (as you found out) exceed something like Mach 0.96 or so adn would either be uncontrollable or break up. The Mach 1+ dive was one of the biggest advantages that the F-86 had over the MIG-15 in the Korean War.
My uncle has told me loads of stories of sonic booms coming from the former RAF Waterbeach, this is back when it was a major player in QRA. At that time there were Meteors, Javelins, Vampires as well as the American counterparts. If you can get over the compress ability issues that occur near the speed of sound then putting it in a shallow dive at full whack should produce something, whether it be a sonic boom or a hole in the ground. There is also the issue if causing the engine to flame out as these engines could not cope with super sonic airflow. Its an interesting question and one that will be a lot of fun to find out.
I was under the impression that the F86 and the MiG 15 were onsidered transonic fighters, they flew subsonic most of the time but every now and then some poor pilot would push things too far and go supersonic in certain maneuvers. Usually the controls wouldn't work after that.
I'm pretty sure that there were times in which WWII fighter aircraft (the Spitfire being one) were also taken to the edge of mach 1, either in extreme maneuvers or even in test conditions to see what would happen (to see if the physics/reports bore out).
I think even a p38 did it during a dive in combat and the canopy blew out because of it.
This reminds me of the A-12 pilot who was at Mach 2.7 and couldn't get it to 3 so he pitched a few hairs below 0 and then it shot out to 3+ and redlined all the gauges and for 15 seconds, the Mach reading was 3.56 and they were never able to get there again. Just a freak thing. Had alot to do with pockets of hot air and cold air.
Hi chaps
The main driver for Mach is actually temperature change (or lapse rate) not so much airflow. So if you get a significant temperature change the local Mach will change dramatically. wind is a factor but it has to change a lot and quickly to make mach change. Additionally the turbulence involved is quite significant when temperature changes of even as little as 4 degrees occur at altitude. Additionally as you descent in the dive your local mach will actually decrease as the air temp increases making it harder to hit mach 1.
This is why we use constant mach climb / descent above mach/IAS transition and it allows us much higher climb / descent rates in the higher levels as we chase mach not airspeed
Not sure how you can fudge the temperature at altitude in DCS but we often use this in the real world level D sims to demonstrate the upset recovery techniques for overspeed scenarios.
My first squadron, VA-304 out of NAS Alameda, CA had a KA-6D hit mach 0.998 in level flight. It was stripped of bomb racks for a functional check flight. The tankers were faster than the bombers bec6they had different tailpipes that didn't induce cool air into the exhaust to help prevent infrared detection.
Aircraft like Spitfires had the strange behaviour because they bent with the loads. Main problem is the airflow over the wing goes faster than you do so reaches supersonic flow first. This produces a shockwave that blanks the elevator. They may move but they have no flow to work in. Hence the all moving tailplane. Rather than drill holes, you could have just looked at them to know. All except the Harrier which is one big flying air brake.....
There are reports of Spitfires going supersonic in dives in WW2. Of course the pilots didnt live to tell the tale but other pilots in the sky reported hearing sonic booms etc.
Having said the pilots didnt survive I've got a feeling one did actually.... I will do some digging.
Any luck?
@@harrier827 The "Speed and altitude records" section for the Spitfire on Wikipedia has a number instance of Spitfire reaching high subsonic speeds in dives, still likely the highest speeds of any WW2 era air-frame. Combined with anecdotes like Raymond Baxter shooting at (but not hitting) a V2 as it went supersonic climbing past his Spitfire IX likely give rise to the Supersonic Spitfire urban legend. If a special research Spitfire flown by a test pilot only made it to 0.92 the idea that a war fighting spitfire could accidentally make it over the line seems optimistic.
The F-86F could and did go past Mach 1 in a shallow dive, and you could pull out using trim and the all-flying tail. The MiG-15 is a suicide mission trying to go supersonic because it does not have inferior controls compared to the F-86.
@@dodecahedron1 Let me try that again. The MiG-15 has an inferior flight control set up compared to the F-86F. That is why the MiG-15 is a potential death trap over .9 Mach.
The A10 c has a Mach meter !
Best way to do this would be to unload the aircraft (keep it at 0 g). That way the aircraft is not generating any lift and therefore no lift-induced drag, which should allow it to accelerate very quickly. Unloaded extention is in fact a BFM tactic.
That mig15 surprised me too. I’d expect it to go supersonic for sure.
One time I was playing FSX and I was flying a 747, and I was wondering why the autopilot wasn’t flying the plane any faster. I looked at the Mach speed. 00 (because the display was only 2 digits). I was inadvertently cruising at supersonic in a Boeing 747.
Most subsonic designs are prevented from going supersonic by compressability upon the airframe producing a subsonic critical Mach number, of the warbirds the highest achievable Mach numbers under test conditions, with pressure adjustment for correct readings was around 0.88 for the Mustang and 0.87 for the BF109 iirc and closer to something like 0.83 for the P47 and Spitfire, although these figures were higher and some were even claimed supersonic before compressability was understood and speed recordings adjusted accordingly. Propellers were destroyed during these tests since obviously their tips achieved faster Mach speed than the airframes so it's dead stick landings all round in any case.
Most, but not all subsonic jets also fall into this category and have an airframe critical Mach number which simply won't physically allow supersonic flight due to compressability although some of these maybe transonic since the biggest limitation for warbirds was the propeller acting like a brick wall.
Some airframes however have an imposed maximum Mach limitation whereby the aircraft is capable of going faster than the quoted maximum but will break up if you do because of instability or airframe stresses. These are straight up thrust-drag capabilities which exceed the airframe safe limitations, several or in fact most 3rd Gen Soviet fighters have this issue including the MiG21 but also so do some large, powerful multi-engine subsonics with low drag for economical purposes, so have a VNE and maximum Mach number less than the aircraft is actually capable of in level flight, but would break up if explored as it is simply a byproduct of making the airframe contribute to less fuel burn, also makes it go faster in the thrust-drag ratio yet is not designed to go there. I think VNE is about direct maximum airspeed structural limitation and maximum Mach number is about aerodynamic instability which may induce structural failure or loss of pilot control, someone correct me if I'm wrong on that.
Then there are those airframes which are quite capable of supersonic flight without much risk however simply don't have the raw power in thrust-drag ratio to achieve it in level flight, which the F86 falls into. In fact many have probably already posted during the time of the Bell X1 tests several F86 pilots were routinely causing sonic booms over the airbase in shallow dives, however the experimental rocket plane was the first to do it in level flight, with scientific instrumentation on board. The Harrier is another in this category and iirc Sukhoi has also published this about the Su25, you may find however they exceed VNE very quickly in this flight condition. I think it's actually the Sea Harrier that's supersonic in a dive but not the GR version.
A4 too but that often destroyed its engine in transonic dives so I can't recall if one ever got supersonic.
Obviously most straight wings unless they're stubs are going to have a subsonic critical Mach number, some are prevented from operating the engine transonic due to inlet design, or have a prop reducing
+GrimReapersAtomic *Among the subsonic types available for Eagle Dynamics DCS:World,* the USMC / McDonnellDouglas AV-8B, USAF / North American F-86F, and VKSR / Sukhoi-25SM can stay in control, going supersonic in a dive. Neither the Mikojan-Gurjevich-15bis nor its improvement the MiG-17 has a stabilizer incidence control, lack of which eliminates pitch control at ≥0.93 Mach. The USAF / Fairchild Hiller A-10 has a Vne in the mid-subsonic range. And the tactical prop-planes were designed before transonic research was conducted.
9:52 like that xD
The Mig15 was tested by the US and managed to hit Mach in a shallow dive, the Test Pilot could not recover the plane until it hit lower denser air and the plane slowed down
cool
If DCS models air density accurately you probably could get every aircraft super sonic if you could start high enough, just free fall acceleration through a near vacuum until they hit the majority of the atmosphere.
i'd add some engineering to the harrier, considering it is roughly 30 something miles per hour shy of mach 1 (probably stripped bare and running on fumes). i'd add an extra engine to the rear (in a fixed position) tandem style, and then add a split tail of "black widow style elevons". Then i'd make the wings larger (and throw that stealth crap out the window). and i'd rebalance the plane by adding weight (as needed) to the front. Ex: avionics in a longer, bigger nose, a titanium bathtub for the pilot, and rounds of ammunition until the balance is at the preferred precise amount.
Apparently a later variant of the spitfire almost went supersonic when they lost control at high altitudes. The pilot said he remembers seeing those white things on the wings that signal when your almost supersonic. He managed to survive tho.
Lol! I have got to fly with you guys some time!! I just attempted this yesterday, in the A-4 Scooter, but didn't have enough altitude.
Hits 1.2 - 1.3 if done right :)
The F-86 was the first aircraft to actually go supersonic, even before the Bell X-1. Test pilot did it in 1946 or 1947 in a dive. Since it had a flying tail, it could recover. The Mig-15 couldn't go supersonic, and like the other commenters said, nearly killed Chuck Yeager. Prop planes can't go supersonic because the prop acts as a huge speed break. The first model of the Harrier (Gr.1 and AV-8A) were supersonic.
When the controls stop working, it is called "compressibility". The higher a plane is, the lower the speed of sound.
It's pretty well known that Spits during emergency dives routinely brushed Mach.
It didn't
The wings would tear off because it's not well angled back enough so the wings wouldn't be able to bounce that shock wave
Just look for any swapped wing cold war jets and you may figure it out
Try to compare the elliptical wing spitfire vs swapped back wings of any jet fighter like the wings of The Mig-17 or Mig-21 and etc
If you have war thunder on your PC try to compare each of them
@@flak8842 Well for one, War thunder is hardly an accurate aerodynamics model. If you clip the wings on a MiG-17, you can achieve supersonic level flight.
Swept wings are not a requirement for supersonic flight. Look at the first supersonic aircraft, the Bell X-1; It has exactly 0 wing sweep on it, it was a trapezoidal planform wing, as the engineers did not feel they knew enough about wing sweep. Faster yet, the X-3 Stiletto, the precursor to the F-104 Starfighter, neither had wing sweep.
Anyway, there was a Spitfire Mk. XI that hit Mach 0.89 in a 45 degree dive. That same aircraft later hit Mach 0.92 in a dive after the rpm limiter on the engine failed. The propeller was ripped to shreds, which moved the center of gravity backwards, which put the aircraft into a climb. The G-stress knocked the pilot out, and when he came to, he was gliding at 40k feet. He managed to land back at the runway, and the wings were bent noticeably upward and backward (like a wing sweep)
I have managed to get the su25 super sonic and you need to use the air break to slow till the air surfaces start to work again
More than a Decade since the 1st Lock On appeared and we still have NO VAPOR CLOUD when going supersonic... Come on...
There’s not always when going super sonic but yes we do need one.
@@oppu i know, but at least having an animation above water would be cool/realistic
Wow DCS still doesn't have vapor cones? But they have vapor clouda modeled when pulling low speed hard turns? Weird
Not having finished the video yet, I'll say I have forced the Su-25A past the sound barrier. It gets DAMNED close in level flight and a dive can push it over.
over 700 knots coming back from Japan to Alaska in a KC-135, 490 true.
wow!
You need to start at a higher altitude. its extremely well known and documented that Spit's, Mustangs and P38 lightnings in emergency dives would not only brush Mach 1 but would push past. Sadly most pilots did not survive do to the buffeting on the control surfaces. you need t also realize that these battles happened above 20,000 ft not in the more dense air at 8,000 ft.
You know when the Germans have created the me-163 to fight the US B17 bombers
It did fought them at 20000m if I am right
Right at that altitude the me-163 can reach the sound barrier nearly at it's wings speed limit
But again at extreme altitudes you won't break any sound barrier
Maximum speed for all of those WWII props would be mach 0.89 no more
Think you have to dive in a 35 to 40 degree angle. So you can accelerate over a longer distance!
Roger thats an interesting test to do.
When cap shouted: RAMMSTEIN....
I fucking died
I think compressibility is the correct term to describe the phenomenon behind loss of control above certain speeds.
That's it, thanks
how big is the threshold between the 3 different air layers in DCS? it slowly changes between the two air zones? or immediate?
The A380 never went super sonic, it was in a air stream and got a tailwind reaching a ground speed of mach 1
I love how the guy who posted the suggestion was like "yeah no one knows this but an A380 definitely went supersonic, and there was definitely high altitude windshear" xD Can guarantee that whoever submitted that comment is 14 and plays FSX too much
@Mae ! That article says it wasn't actually supersonic, just had a ground speed higher than nominal mach 1 but its actual mach was normal (~0.85), which is exactly what the OP said.
Whoever submitted that question has about as much "inside information" or understanding as a janitor in the pentagon would have about a next gen stealth bomber.
*** It would be nice to have the "Super Sonic Vapor" cloud around the aircraft. Plus the pressure wave...:)
agree
Play war thunder If you wanna get full effect
Can't you get up to max speed with wind in you back, then change the wind direction to a head wind?
or is it just not possible to change that in-mish ?
early models of the p-47 and p-38 achieved supersonic flight...accidentally. the p-47 was in a shallow dive long enough to overspeed during testing when it went supersonic. it ripped the fabric off the tail controls and the pilot was forced to bail out. the plane was lost, but thankfully the pilot survived. the p-38 was in combat over the Europe when trying to evade 3 German fighters. pilot crammed the stick forward into a dive and of course the controls locked up. a last ditch effort with the speed breaks helped the pilot regain control of the aircraft and the plane and pilot lived to fight another day.
The P-38 was known to have a problem with locked controls at higher speeds, still nothing near the speed of sound. The P-47 is too draggy to hit the speed of sound with a radial engine
Chuck Yeager put his P-51D into a dive and broke the sound barrier.
You'll need more altitudes.
And you'll find that an aircraft if it doesnt designed for supersonic flight, then it will simply break all the airframe. Supersonic is not about vertical dive, but also about the aerodynamic design (wing config) till the load factor that it could sustain.
The DC-8 famously went supersonic in a shallow dive during flight testing. I wonder if modern jetliners could do the same thing, as I'm not sure if the high bypass engines will even produce thrust at supersonic speeds.
I think it's called compressibility of the control surfaces
For the next trick, slowest A to B race with supersonic stuff.
why don't you roll inverted to dive? more efficient and won't stall the 109
Why is the mig-15 not going supersonic at 560 kts, when the su-25 does?! What gives, mig15 went way faster, ~650 kts
The LSS (local speed of sound) is responsible for that. At sea level with ISA conditions (1013.2 hPa, 15C) the LSS is 661knots. When you go higher, the LSS changes as the density and temperature changes. Eg at 30000 ft it’s 589 kts. This is TAS, as you instruments are displayed in IAS the value you read will be much lower. Mach = TAS/LSS
The is an old story that the first supersonic plane was actually the F86 in a dive.
Yeah and instruments in it werent able to register it.
F-86 was built after the x-1 which broke the sound barrier in early 1947. First xf-86 flew in late 47.
So thats just it a story.
There were also reports of both the Me-163 & Me-262 going supersonic in dives during the war
@@williamkillingsworth2619 Actually the first supersonic flight was October 14th, 1947. The first flight of the F86 was October 1st, 1947. Its quite possible that the F86 did in fact beat the X1. 🤷♂️
@@grizzlybozak Great read: theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-hans-guido-mutke-the-me-262-pilot-who-might-have-went-supersonic-two-years-earlier-than-chuck-yeager/
The whole time I was wondering what the heck is a "mack meter". Finally I realized he was pronouncing "mach meter" wrong.
6 month old vid, so someone has probably commented, but real-world F-86 would go supersonic in a dive (I believe it was the first US fighter in service that would break the sound barrier, citation needed).
I put the Sabre through Mach 1 all the time, but in much shallower dives.
The ad before this video actually made me laugh out loud. That is illegal, FUCKING LIBERTY MUTUAL of all things... you ready for this?
"Liberty Bibity"
Sold.
You know what Galileo says? “OHhhh Shit! Where’s the gun button?!”😂
This should be FUN! Boom!!! or BOOM!!!
There was a version of the Spitfire I believe it was the Mark XVI that reached mach .96 during testing in a dive. Read that a few weeks ago can't remember the source.
Just a false info
Again the spitfire won't touch the sound barrier at mach 1
I GOT TIRED FROM THIS
George Walsh and the Happy Bottom Riders club sure would disagree with Chuck Yeager !
If You go to the air and space museum, they say Chuck did it first ( but dont bother to say "In Level Flight".
Civilian pilot George Welch is generally known to have broken the sound barrier on 1 October 1947 in an XP-86 Sabre (F-86 prototype), which was two weeks before Yeager's flight. HOWEVER it was in a dive. Yeager gets the credit for breaking Mach One in level flight (often this level flight distinction is not included in Yeager accounts). What's more, just 30 minutes before Yeager's 14 October flight, Welch did it again, in a dive. I've read that the AF succeeded in having the Welch flights' info squelched so that it could claim the record by an AF pilot. The XP-86 officially achieved supersonic speed on 26 April 1948. Welch was one of the few Army Air Force fighter pilots to get airborne at Pearl Harbor on December 7, downing or damaging at least four Japanese planes. He was a 16-kill ace by the end of WWII and in Korea as a civilian instructor he unofficially (of course) shot down several MiG-15s. He died in 1954 when his F-100A Super Sabre came apart during a Mach 1.55 pullout. Chuck Yeager was flying the chase plane.
Question: since you can design different air speeds and wind directions at different altitudes, why not just do a less steep dive with a tail wind at higher altitude and an headwind at lower altitude? This way you get the benefit of trading potential energy for kinetic and also altitude based wind shear.
Big Brain!
Got a question for you can you transfer your planes from stream over to dcs
Yup
@@grimreapers capt can you show me how i have the beta dcs and the steam but my planes on steam
Where is the Mi-8 supersonic test fail? :P
ooo painful
Do a max dive speed test in the Ka-50. Hint: I've got that thing past 500kph without breaking the rotors.
MI-8 is helicopter and it won't even get to the sound barrier
Hey GR you guys should double check the f-86 going supersonic it can do it and it can pull out of the dive with rudder and elevator inputs (ailerons will do funky things) this test waa silly and fun but killing migs above 1.0 is a blast because noone thinks you can do it;]
wilco
Cap can you do a video on how to install the VSN F-104 starfighter
yup
The supersonic A380 stories all have publication dates of April 1st...
Chuck Yeager would be proud!
What plane do you recommend for a beginner? I'm building a gaming PC and this is gonna be the first game I get. The two planes I'm interested in are the Harrier and the f-16. What do you recommend out of these two?
F-16 is better but Harrier is more complete, so tough decision.
@@grimreapers Okay looks like I'll be doing some more thinking then 😂 how do I join the reapers once I've got a hang on things?
Cap, believe or not, but MAH (speed of sound) depends purely on temperature, not pressure ;)
That makes sense, thanks!
What plane is the hair dryer?
mig15 can actually go supersonic, but its basically a death trap at that point. It also does have a mach indicator at the bottom left. Also, f86 is actually a bit faster then the mig15
I've heard of a case were a spitfire went supersonic or close too ot at least the pilot was flying very high although I dont remember exactly but he got vapor to bleed off the wings whick is an indicator of supersonic unless your in like a 3rd or 5th gen fighter
Condensed vapor is not itself the only indication of supersonic airflow
what is this fastest any DCS aircraft can go heading directly down?
M2.622 F-15C.
@@grimreapers thanks for the reply!
I'm pretty sure Mach is measured by local flow by definition.
thx
Cool test
You guys should do a defector series where one or two guys run in a plane of their choice and you and a gang of others planes take off a few minutes after and chase them down or try to. They would either have to make it into a neighboring country where other enemy planes are waiting to provide air cover or survive till you run out of ammo. You could always ram them tho. They are carrying Top Secret information with them that could lead to the fall of your country. 🤷🏾♂️
The spit can go Mach 0.98 in a dive according to wings on my sleeve by test pilot Eric brown
Warrior Gecko Wings On My Sleeve definitely a recommended read for everyone on here!
The Spitfire had the highest critical Mach number of any WW2 piston engine fighter.
Lol really
The spitfire at high speed dive is subsonic
Oh the Dora is better at step dive
You should try the P-38.
Not in the sim though... but I hope we'll get one. Should try the Mossie and 262 when they arrive though :)
IRL the MIG 15 was slower than the sabre in terms of top speed and VMAX the Mig15 would rip at .92 Mach
Oh Captain, my Captain.
Historically Su-25 were actually able to go supersonic in level flight
How do you expect there to be a vertical barrier between the wind going in opposite directions IRL? there is no such thing. What could happen is for such barrer to be horizontal. Jetstream going very fast and then the layer of slower air a bit lower. And then an aircraft moving in a jetstrean and descending into the slower air. That seems like a more possible scenario.
My testes detach from my scrotal sack when I attempt to go super sonic.
Get ready to be degloved
Detatched because the trans sonic shockwave these are responsible of your plane being broke
Look if you wanna exceed the supersonic you need to find a plane that it's wing are swapped enough and an engine that can overcome this force
Does make sense now ?