Low Tech Tips for Previous Wars

John Fields · Aug 15, 2012

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:27:36 +0100, "Ian Field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:kd4o28tju625pg76pnjnhugchbm9e2ickr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:16:13 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:tbjl281jbs4lb2ilg0vs4v92f84fk8rs2g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 22:35:59 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
newsnel28pti93imut689ad7rsugsmulc9i6s@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:20:27 -0700 (PDT), fungus <tooby@artlum.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:22:37 PM UTC+2, Phil Allison wrote:
"fungus"
I'm not sure of the wisdom of having a tech
discussion with somebody who thinks WWII
aircraft had swept back wings.

** This one did.

Yes, but he said:

"For example, planes in WWII had swept back wings
when they should have been swept forward."

Seems to me like there's a lot of basic work
to be done before you can start a real discussion.

---
Depending on how you want to define "planes in WW2", there were, AIUI,
only one or two aircraft with wing leading and trailing edges swept
aft.

Ergo, Ian's statement that: "For example, planes in WWII had swept
back wings when they should have been swept forward." is, on its face,
seriously flawed except in one or two cases.

You should probably refrain from mixing crack, LSD & crystal meth all at
once - then you wouldn't fantasize I'd said things I didn't.

---
I have no experience with crack, so the judgment call related to the
fantasies elicited by the mix you described

So you're not denying LSD & crystal meth then.

---
Nor marijuana, hashish, psilocybin, opium, and alcohol.

And you?

Not even booze.

---
So, where then, does your mean posting style come from?

--
JF

John Fields · Aug 15, 2012

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:48:46 -0400, Tom Biasi <tombiasi@optonline.net>
wrote:

Maybe the Brits discovered it independently. The X-1 project was kept
under wraps for quite a long time. Nobody knew about the supersonic
flight until after someone else claimed to be the first. Quite a lot later.

I had an interesting discussion about that with Chuck Yeager a few years
back

---
Can you elaborate?

--
JF

Jim Thompson · Aug 15, 2012

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:22:19 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:27:36 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:kd4o28tju625pg76pnjnhugchbm9e2ickr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:16:13 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:tbjl281jbs4lb2ilg0vs4v92f84fk8rs2g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 22:35:59 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
newsnel28pti93imut689ad7rsugsmulc9i6s@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:20:27 -0700 (PDT), fungus <tooby@artlum.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:22:37 PM UTC+2, Phil Allison wrote:
"fungus"
I'm not sure of the wisdom of having a tech
discussion with somebody who thinks WWII
aircraft had swept back wings.

** This one did.

Yes, but he said:

"For example, planes in WWII had swept back wings
when they should have been swept forward."

Seems to me like there's a lot of basic work
to be done before you can start a real discussion.

---
Depending on how you want to define "planes in WW2", there were, AIUI,
only one or two aircraft with wing leading and trailing edges swept
aft.

Ergo, Ian's statement that: "For example, planes in WWII had swept
back wings when they should have been swept forward." is, on its face,
seriously flawed except in one or two cases.

You should probably refrain from mixing crack, LSD & crystal meth all at
once - then you wouldn't fantasize I'd said things I didn't.

---
I have no experience with crack, so the judgment call related to the
fantasies elicited by the mix you described

So you're not denying LSD & crystal meth then.

---
Nor marijuana, hashish, psilocybin, opium, and alcohol.

And you?

Not even booze.

---
So, where then, does your mean posting style come from?

Jim Thompson · Aug 15, 2012

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:24:53 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:48:46 -0400, Tom Biasi <tombiasi@optonline.net
wrote:

Maybe the Brits discovered it independently. The X-1 project was kept
under wraps for quite a long time. Nobody knew about the supersonic
flight until after someone else claimed to be the first. Quite a lot later.

I had an interesting discussion about that with Chuck Yeager a few years
back

---
Can you elaborate?

I met him once at a Chamber of Commerce awards ceremony for graduating
high school students, where I garnered all the science and math awards
(1958).

Chuck Yeager is a West Virginia country boy like me ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice

Phil Allison · Aug 15, 2012

"Fred Abse"
"Phil Allison"

See pic of the Bell X1 - the first plane to exceed the speed of sound in
level flight.

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2001/11/images/bell_x1_06.jpg

No sweep.

AFAIK, the breakthrough that allowed the X1 to fly
controllably, supersonically was the modification allowing the whole
stabilizer to rotate, rather than having a separate elevator at its
trailing edge.

** An " all flying tail " was fitted to the F86 "E" version during the
Korean war.

It improved control at near supersonic speeds and allowed to to
out-manoeuvre the MiG 15s.

.... Phil

Tom Biasi · Aug 16, 2012

On 8/15/2012 6:24 PM, John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:48:46 -0400, Tom Biasi <tombiasi@optonline.net
wrote:

Maybe the Brits discovered it independently. The X-1 project was kept
under wraps for quite a long time. Nobody knew about the supersonic
flight until after someone else claimed to be the first. Quite a lot later.

I had an interesting discussion about that with Chuck Yeager a few years
back

---
Can you elaborate?

Well it was a while ago but he told how when he was preparing to take
the test flight he was never allowed to call it an experimental
aircraft. They were never allowed to call any test flights experimental.
When he sat in the cockpit on the fateful day he remembered not being
very confident in seeing the airspeed indicator only going up to mach
one. He mentioned many times that he wanted to be an astronaut. He was
not eligible for lack of college. In his training they experimented with
the G suit. It was sort of a pneumatic suit that would squeeze his legs
to force blood to the brain. He told of playing "chicken" with the
German pilots and going into high G maneuvers until tunnel vision
occurred and hoping the German would pass-out first. Is there anything
specific you would like me to recall?

Tom

Tom Biasi · Aug 16, 2012

On 8/15/2012 6:34 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:24:53 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:48:46 -0400, Tom Biasi <tombiasi@optonline.net
wrote:

Maybe the Brits discovered it independently. The X-1 project was kept
under wraps for quite a long time. Nobody knew about the supersonic
flight until after someone else claimed to be the first. Quite a lot later.

I had an interesting discussion about that with Chuck Yeager a few years
back

---
Can you elaborate?

I met him once at a Chamber of Commerce awards ceremony for graduating
high school students, where I garnered all the science and math awards
(1958).

Chuck Yeager is a West Virginia country boy like me ;-)

...Jim Thompson

In deed he was. He made specific mention of that when he talked of being
shot down in Germany. He headed for woods cover. He smiled when he said
there was not a German alive that could catch a West Virginny boy in the
woods.
Tom

Jim Thompson · Aug 16, 2012

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 21:10:21 -0400, Tom Biasi <tombiasi@optonline.net>
wrote:

On 8/15/2012 6:34 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:24:53 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 17:48:46 -0400, Tom Biasi <tombiasi@optonline.net
wrote:

Maybe the Brits discovered it independently. The X-1 project was kept
under wraps for quite a long time. Nobody knew about the supersonic
flight until after someone else claimed to be the first. Quite a lot later.

I had an interesting discussion about that with Chuck Yeager a few years
back

---
Can you elaborate?

I met him once at a Chamber of Commerce awards ceremony for graduating
high school students, where I garnered all the science and math awards
(1958).

Chuck Yeager is a West Virginia country boy like me ;-)

...Jim Thompson

In deed he was. He made specific mention of that when he talked of being
shot down in Germany. He headed for woods cover. He smiled when he said
there was not a German alive that could catch a West Virginny boy in the
woods.
Tom

Ian Field · Aug 16, 2012

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:a92ng6FcahU1@mid.individual.net...

"Fred Abse"
"Phil Allison"

See pic of the Bell X1 - the first plane to exceed the speed of sound in
level flight.

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2001/11/images/bell_x1_06.jpg

No sweep.

AFAIK, the breakthrough that allowed the X1 to fly
controllably, supersonically was the modification allowing the whole
stabilizer to rotate, rather than having a separate elevator at its
trailing edge.

** An " all flying tail " was fitted to the F86 "E" version during the
Korean war.

It improved control at near supersonic speeds and allowed to to
out-manoeuvre the MiG 15s.

... Phil

ISTR reading somewhere that the earliest Marks of F86 didn't even have swept
wings - although the straight wing models may not have been used
operationally.

Ian Field · Aug 16, 2012

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:an7o28p5ojtj3ivbj694buuvgmcthb5krk@4ax.com...

On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 22:27:36 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:kd4o28tju625pg76pnjnhugchbm9e2ickr@4ax.com...
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:16:13 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:tbjl281jbs4lb2ilg0vs4v92f84fk8rs2g@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 22:35:59 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
newsnel28pti93imut689ad7rsugsmulc9i6s@4ax.com...
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:20:27 -0700 (PDT), fungus <tooby@artlum.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:22:37 PM UTC+2, Phil Allison wrote:
"fungus"
I'm not sure of the wisdom of having a tech
discussion with somebody who thinks WWII
aircraft had swept back wings.

** This one did.

Yes, but he said:

"For example, planes in WWII had swept back wings
when they should have been swept forward."

Seems to me like there's a lot of basic work
to be done before you can start a real discussion.

---
Depending on how you want to define "planes in WW2", there were,
AIUI,
only one or two aircraft with wing leading and trailing edges swept
aft.

Ergo, Ian's statement that: "For example, planes in WWII had swept
back wings when they should have been swept forward." is, on its
face,
seriously flawed except in one or two cases.

You should probably refrain from mixing crack, LSD & crystal meth all
at
once - then you wouldn't fantasize I'd said things I didn't.

---
I have no experience with crack, so the judgment call related to the
fantasies elicited by the mix you described

So you're not denying LSD & crystal meth then.

---
Nor marijuana, hashish, psilocybin, opium, and alcohol.

And you?

Not even booze.

---
So, where then, does your mean posting style come from?

--
JF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz · Aug 16, 2012

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:06:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:a92ng6FcahU1@mid.individual.net...

"Fred Abse"
"Phil Allison"

See pic of the Bell X1 - the first plane to exceed the speed of sound in
level flight.

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2001/11/images/bell_x1_06.jpg

No sweep.

AFAIK, the breakthrough that allowed the X1 to fly
controllably, supersonically was the modification allowing the whole
stabilizer to rotate, rather than having a separate elevator at its
trailing edge.

** An " all flying tail " was fitted to the F86 "E" version during the
Korean war.

It improved control at near supersonic speeds and allowed to to
out-manoeuvre the MiG 15s.

... Phil

ISTR reading somewhere that the earliest Marks of F86 didn't even have swept
wings - although the straight wing models may not have been used
operationally.

The P80/F80 Shooting Star, which also saw action in Korea, didn't have swept
wings but all F86s did.

Ian Field · Aug 16, 2012

<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:4h1q289i4k8k0rr4umc1dgkqms0je0gg70@4ax.com...

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:06:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:a92ng6FcahU1@mid.individual.net...

"Fred Abse"
"Phil Allison"

See pic of the Bell X1 - the first plane to exceed the speed of sound
in
level flight.

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2001/11/images/bell_x1_06.jpg

No sweep.

AFAIK, the breakthrough that allowed the X1 to fly
controllably, supersonically was the modification allowing the whole
stabilizer to rotate, rather than having a separate elevator at its
trailing edge.

** An " all flying tail " was fitted to the F86 "E" version during the
Korean war.

It improved control at near supersonic speeds and allowed to to
out-manoeuvre the MiG 15s.

... Phil

ISTR reading somewhere that the earliest Marks of F86 didn't even have
swept
wings - although the straight wing models may not have been used
operationally.

The P80/F80 Shooting Star, which also saw action in Korea, didn't have
swept
wings but all F86s did.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-86.htm

The F-86 Sabre was originally designed for the US Navy in 1945 as a
straight-winged jet fighter, and was derived from the XJ Fury

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz · Aug 16, 2012

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:10:01 +0100, "Ian Field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:4h1q289i4k8k0rr4umc1dgkqms0je0gg70@4ax.com...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:06:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:a92ng6FcahU1@mid.individual.net...

"Fred Abse"
"Phil Allison"

See pic of the Bell X1 - the first plane to exceed the speed of sound
in
level flight.

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2001/11/images/bell_x1_06.jpg

No sweep.

AFAIK, the breakthrough that allowed the X1 to fly
controllably, supersonically was the modification allowing the whole
stabilizer to rotate, rather than having a separate elevator at its
trailing edge.

** An " all flying tail " was fitted to the F86 "E" version during the
Korean war.

It improved control at near supersonic speeds and allowed to to
out-manoeuvre the MiG 15s.

... Phil

ISTR reading somewhere that the earliest Marks of F86 didn't even have
swept
wings - although the straight wing models may not have been used
operationally.

The P80/F80 Shooting Star, which also saw action in Korea, didn't have
swept
wings but all F86s did.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-86.htm

The F-86 Sabre was originally designed for the US Navy in 1945 as a
straight-winged jet fighter, and was derived from the XJ Fury

I don't see where it says that at all:

"The F-86 Sabre was originally designed for the US Navy in 1945 as a
straight-winged jet fighter, and was derived from the XJ Fury. North
American Aviation, already famous for its P-51 Mustang and B-25 Billy
Mitchell bomber, was put under contract by the US Army Air Force to produce
a new jet fighter. Utilizing information captured from the Germans,
innovative technologies were employed in transforming the straight-winged
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
XFJ-1 into the swept-wing F-86 Sabre that would dominate the skies over
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Korea in the 1950s."

The Navy's plane wasn't the F86, rather the XFJ-1. Do you have a picture of a
straight-winged F86? ...or even a Navy F86?

Ian Field · Aug 16, 2012

<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:fj8q289mk9dd8jpp0a091lr210m12u04fc@4ax.com...

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:10:01 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:4h1q289i4k8k0rr4umc1dgkqms0je0gg70@4ax.com...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:06:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:a92ng6FcahU1@mid.individual.net...

"Fred Abse"
"Phil Allison"

See pic of the Bell X1 - the first plane to exceed the speed of
sound
in
level flight.

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2001/11/images/bell_x1_06.jpg

No sweep.

AFAIK, the breakthrough that allowed the X1 to fly
controllably, supersonically was the modification allowing the whole
stabilizer to rotate, rather than having a separate elevator at its
trailing edge.

** An " all flying tail " was fitted to the F86 "E" version during the
Korean war.

It improved control at near supersonic speeds and allowed to to
out-manoeuvre the MiG 15s.

... Phil

ISTR reading somewhere that the earliest Marks of F86 didn't even have
swept
wings - although the straight wing models may not have been used
operationally.

The P80/F80 Shooting Star, which also saw action in Korea, didn't have
swept
wings but all F86s did.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-86.htm

The F-86 Sabre was originally designed for the US Navy in 1945 as a
straight-winged jet fighter, and was derived from the XJ Fury

I don't see where it says that at all:

"The F-86 Sabre was originally designed for the US Navy in 1945 as a
straight-winged jet fighter, and was derived from the XJ Fury. North
American Aviation, already famous for its P-51 Mustang and B-25 Billy
Mitchell bomber, was put under contract by the US Army Air Force to
produce
a new jet fighter. Utilizing information captured from the Germans,
innovative technologies were employed in transforming the straight-winged
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
XFJ-1 into the swept-wing F-86 Sabre that would dominate the skies over
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Korea in the 1950s."

The Navy's plane wasn't the F86, rather the XFJ-1. Do you have a picture
of a
straight-winged F86? ...or even a Navy F86?

As I said; I don't know that it was ever used operationally - it was
certainly prototyped, and there may have been a production run before its
shortcomings became obvious.

AFAIK: all airframes that had been built were retrofitted with swept wings
as soon as they became available.

But it did exist.

John Fields · Aug 16, 2012

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:27:14 +0100, "Ian Field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:fj8q289mk9dd8jpp0a091lr210m12u04fc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:10:01 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:4h1q289i4k8k0rr4umc1dgkqms0je0gg70@4ax.com...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:06:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:a92ng6FcahU1@mid.individual.net...

"Fred Abse"
"Phil Allison"

See pic of the Bell X1 - the first plane to exceed the speed of
sound
in
level flight.

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2001/11/images/bell_x1_06.jpg

No sweep.

AFAIK, the breakthrough that allowed the X1 to fly
controllably, supersonically was the modification allowing the whole
stabilizer to rotate, rather than having a separate elevator at its
trailing edge.

** An " all flying tail " was fitted to the F86 "E" version during the
Korean war.

It improved control at near supersonic speeds and allowed to to
out-manoeuvre the MiG 15s.

... Phil

ISTR reading somewhere that the earliest Marks of F86 didn't even have
swept
wings - although the straight wing models may not have been used
operationally.

The P80/F80 Shooting Star, which also saw action in Korea, didn't have
swept
wings but all F86s did.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-86.htm

The F-86 Sabre was originally designed for the US Navy in 1945 as a
straight-winged jet fighter, and was derived from the XJ Fury

I don't see where it says that at all:

"The F-86 Sabre was originally designed for the US Navy in 1945 as a
straight-winged jet fighter, and was derived from the XJ Fury. North
American Aviation, already famous for its P-51 Mustang and B-25 Billy
Mitchell bomber, was put under contract by the US Army Air Force to
produce
a new jet fighter. Utilizing information captured from the Germans,
innovative technologies were employed in transforming the straight-winged
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
XFJ-1 into the swept-wing F-86 Sabre that would dominate the skies over
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Korea in the 1950s."

The Navy's plane wasn't the F86, rather the XFJ-1. Do you have a picture
of a
straight-winged F86? ...or even a Navy F86?

As I said; I don't know that it was ever used operationally - it was
certainly prototyped, and there may have been a production run before its
shortcomings became obvious.

AFAIK: all airframes that had been built were retrofitted with swept wings
as soon as they became available.

But it did exist.

---
This seems to be a more detailed, definitive reference:

http://sabre-pilots.org/classics/v41develop.htm

--
JF

Ian Field · Aug 16, 2012

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:q5nq28d9mse9fkhnvepp5ccp9hij0lekvf@4ax.com...

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:27:14 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:fj8q289mk9dd8jpp0a091lr210m12u04fc@4ax.com...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:10:01 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:4h1q289i4k8k0rr4umc1dgkqms0je0gg70@4ax.com...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:06:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:a92ng6FcahU1@mid.individual.net...

"Fred Abse"
"Phil Allison"

See pic of the Bell X1 - the first plane to exceed the speed of
sound
in
level flight.

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2001/11/images/bell_x1_06.jpg

No sweep.

AFAIK, the breakthrough that allowed the X1 to fly
controllably, supersonically was the modification allowing the
whole
stabilizer to rotate, rather than having a separate elevator at its
trailing edge.

** An " all flying tail " was fitted to the F86 "E" version during
the
Korean war.

It improved control at near supersonic speeds and allowed to to
out-manoeuvre the MiG 15s.

... Phil

ISTR reading somewhere that the earliest Marks of F86 didn't even have
swept
wings - although the straight wing models may not have been used
operationally.

The P80/F80 Shooting Star, which also saw action in Korea, didn't have
swept
wings but all F86s did.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-86.htm

The F-86 Sabre was originally designed for the US Navy in 1945 as a
straight-winged jet fighter, and was derived from the XJ Fury

I don't see where it says that at all:

"The F-86 Sabre was originally designed for the US Navy in 1945 as a
straight-winged jet fighter, and was derived from the XJ Fury. North
American Aviation, already famous for its P-51 Mustang and B-25 Billy
Mitchell bomber, was put under contract by the US Army Air Force to
produce
a new jet fighter. Utilizing information captured from the Germans,
innovative technologies were employed in transforming the
straight-winged

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
XFJ-1 into the swept-wing F-86 Sabre that would dominate the skies over
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Korea in the 1950s."

The Navy's plane wasn't the F86, rather the XFJ-1. Do you have a
picture
of a
straight-winged F86? ...or even a Navy F86?

As I said; I don't know that it was ever used operationally - it was
certainly prototyped, and there may have been a production run before its
shortcomings became obvious.

AFAIK: all airframes that had been built were retrofitted with swept wings
as soon as they became available.

But it did exist.

---
This seems to be a more detailed, definitive reference:

http://sabre-pilots.org/classics/v41develop.htm

That document is more like burying in paperwork - I collect and read any
aviation e-books I find, maybe nearly a dozen on the F86 alone. Some go into
considerable detail in the early development of the type - at leas one has
shown a picture of a stright wing F86, AFAICR all airframes produced in that
configuration were retrofitted with swept wings as soon as stocks were
available, and the assembly line was also changed before any further
production.

AFAIK none were deployed operationally, but some may have been flown by
military test pilots - that's probably how the found out the straight wings
didn't make the predicted speed.

Phil Allison · Aug 16, 2012

"Ian Field"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-86.htm

** The above article has numerous errors and misleading statements.

Egs:

That the F86 could go supersonic in a shallow dive, instead of a near
vertical one in fact ( see any reference on this)

That the F86 possessed a 300 mph advantage over similar straight winged
aircraft when flying at sea level - when the advantage is more like 60 to
80mph over types like the F80 ( see relevant Wikis )

That the F86 achieved a 10:1 shoot down advantage over the MiG15 in Korea
when the real number is less than 2:1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-86_Sabre#Korean_War

See last para.

It is interesting to note that early jets like the F80 and F86 achieved
higher speeds near sea level than at high altitude, the reverse of most
propeller driven experience. This indicates that the thrust produced from
their engines fell away above about 10,000 feet.

.... Phil

Ian Field · Aug 17, 2012

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:a95fjaF5beU1@mid.individual.net...

"Ian Field"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-86.htm

** The above article has numerous errors and misleading statements.

Egs:

That the F86 could go supersonic in a shallow dive, instead of a near
vertical one in fact ( see any reference on this)

That the F86 possessed a 300 mph advantage over similar straight winged
aircraft when flying at sea level - when the advantage is more like 60 to
80mph over types like the F80 ( see relevant Wikis )

That the F86 achieved a 10:1 shoot down advantage over the MiG15 in Korea
when the real number is less than 2:1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-86_Sabre#Korean_War

See last para.

It is interesting to note that early jets like the F80 and F86 achieved
higher speeds near sea level than at high altitude, the reverse of most
propeller driven experience. This indicates that the thrust produced from
their engines fell away above about 10,000 feet.

... Phil

Seems a few articles on the F86 were written from faded memory.

Having searched through my collection of F86 E-books; I found references to
the straight wing predecessor to the F86 which was known variously as FL-1 &
XP86 - that was immediately followed by another XP86 that's virtually
indistinguishable from a F86.

John Fields · Aug 17, 2012

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:11:58 +0100, "Ian Field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:a95fjaF5beU1@mid.individual.net...

"Ian Field"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-86.htm

** The above article has numerous errors and misleading statements.

Egs:

That the F86 could go supersonic in a shallow dive, instead of a near
vertical one in fact ( see any reference on this)

That the F86 possessed a 300 mph advantage over similar straight winged
aircraft when flying at sea level - when the advantage is more like 60 to
80mph over types like the F80 ( see relevant Wikis )

That the F86 achieved a 10:1 shoot down advantage over the MiG15 in Korea
when the real number is less than 2:1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-86_Sabre#Korean_War

See last para.

It is interesting to note that early jets like the F80 and F86 achieved
higher speeds near sea level than at high altitude, the reverse of most
propeller driven experience. This indicates that the thrust produced from
their engines fell away above about 10,000 feet.

... Phil

Seems a few articles on the F86 were written from faded memory.

Having searched through my collection of F86 E-books; I found references to
the straight wing predecessor to the F86 which was known variously as FL-1 &
XP86 - that was immediately followed by another XP86 that's virtually
indistinguishable from a F86.

---
Here's an interesting video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3viiJ4g5G8&feature=related

--
JF

Ian Field · Aug 17, 2012

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:7v6t289cufrd819dksrdn06h2d5hp09l2d@4ax.com...

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:11:58 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:a95fjaF5beU1@mid.individual.net...

"Ian Field"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-86.htm

** The above article has numerous errors and misleading statements.

Egs:

That the F86 could go supersonic in a shallow dive, instead of a near
vertical one in fact ( see any reference on this)

That the F86 possessed a 300 mph advantage over similar straight winged
aircraft when flying at sea level - when the advantage is more like 60
to
80mph over types like the F80 ( see relevant Wikis )

That the F86 achieved a 10:1 shoot down advantage over the MiG15 in
Korea
when the real number is less than 2:1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-86_Sabre#Korean_War

See last para.

It is interesting to note that early jets like the F80 and F86 achieved
higher speeds near sea level than at high altitude, the reverse of most
propeller driven experience. This indicates that the thrust produced
from
their engines fell away above about 10,000 feet.

... Phil

Seems a few articles on the F86 were written from faded memory.

Having searched through my collection of F86 E-books; I found references
to
the straight wing predecessor to the F86 which was known variously as FL-1
&
XP86 - that was immediately followed by another XP86 that's virtually
indistinguishable from a F86.

---
Here's an interesting video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3viiJ4g5G8&feature=related

--
JF

Very interesting - thanks.

Low Tech Tips for Previous Wars

John Fields

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Phil Allison

Guest

Tom Biasi

Guest

Tom Biasi

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Ian Field

Guest

Ian Field

Guest

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz

Guest

Ian Field

Guest

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz

Guest

Ian Field

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Ian Field

Guest

Phil Allison

Guest

Ian Field

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Ian Field

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor