Sorry, tenfiveracer, the Budweiser rocket car speed was never certified by the USAF.
The speed claims were made solely by the SOS group operating the car.
USAF states "Data produced by the Air Force Flight Test Center engineering section was provided at commercial rates to SOS (the Budweiser Rocket). It was the intent of the Air Force that such data be interpreted by that organization. The Air Force never inteded to give official sanction to test results..." Michael S. Alba, Lt. Col. USAF
Camera does not have a clue how the X-15 shock wave experiments were carried out on the "high range" what equipment was used and what the data recorded. I have 2 books right in front of me that explain the microphone locations and data recorded, yet he contests the information I quoted with no rationale.I still have the books right here and he still refuses to acknowledge the published facts but offers nothing else just his own conceited opinion with no regard for published books or reports.
The Budweiser Rocket Car did reach a speed of Mach 1.0106 breaking the Sound Barrier. The hybrid rocket engine and the sidewinder ran out of fuel just before the electronic timing trap to measure its speed. The EAFB radar clocked the car at Mach 1.0106. The speed of Sound at the dry lake bed air temp of 26F was 739 mph or 1,013 ft/sec. The Rocket Car exceeded that.
In order to see a shockwave the air has to have moisture in it. The dry lake bed of Muroc is in the desert and humidity was low.
@HDTVJim "In order to see a shockwave the air has to have moisture in it. The dry lake bed of Muroc is in the desert and humidity was low."
This is not correct. The shockwaves generated by Thrust SSC were done so in dry air at Black Rock Lake and were certainly visible (Google it). They were visible both from the air and from the ground. Cameras can capture what your eye cannot always see. No such pictures exist of the Bud Rocket.
The rest is not supported by any submitted evidence.
@Camerameister1 not true at all again. you really need to find another textbook cupcake cause your really sounding like an imbecile trying to discredit everyone else with this garbage you learned wrong, were you on dope during school hours? there are 6 different still pictures of the Bud Rocket with both the rear wheels off the ground and one video is right here in front of your face, you simply choose to ignore it, track marks on the course absent for over 600ft substantiate this.
@1MtnBoy Well, so far sport, you've been wrong on all aspects of aerodynamic theory.
And there are others who've already pointed it out.
None of those pictures shows any evidence of Shliere. I have a mate who is a scientific photographer and racing enthusiast and when I showed him he said there was not the slightest indication of it. Of course, I knew that already.
@Camerameister1 you seem to forget, your not presenting any evidence to the contrary, you may claim whatever you like despite the facts but proving it is beyond your ability. the photo's have already been analyzed by folks much smarter than you or I and been substantiated, the scopes trial is over.....
@1MtnBoy Incidentally, the pictures of the Bud Rocket off the ground are yet another distraction to cover your lack of understanding of aerodynamic theory.
That the rear of the vehicle was off the ground has not been disputed by anyone, not even me.
The reason is up for dispute by anyone with a knowledge of aerodynamics. Perhaps then, you could explain why there was no damage to the surface under the vehicle? Thrust SSC destroyed the surface it ran on.
@Camerameister1 you must have your own version of aerodynamics then, the rest of the professionals would point out that you are not presenting any evidence to prove your ill-conceived attempts you are simply contesting the recorded data with no sound basis just a lot of copying textbook quotes that are not relevant in an attempt to sound intelligent while you missed the basics by a mile..
@1MtnBoy My version? Goodness me, dear boy, you ARE confused. I quoted text books. You just complained and came up with nothing of any substance whatsoever.
@Camerameister1 neither are you, you are simply disputing the claims without offering any proof of your observations, just contention with no data to back it up
@1MtnBoy I have quoted text books. You have ranted endlessly about things you don't understand in an effort to shake me off. Things like inertial coupling and other irrelevancies you clearly have no understanding of.
@Camerameister1 name one ! lets go Einstein. I already proved you wrong on the pressure/ temperature relationship. what embarrassment would you like to endure next ?
@Camerameister1 I dont care how many text books you misquote because you lack basic understanding, quoting multiple syllable words doesn't make you smart while you overlook the basics
@HDTVJim Incidentally, just to clarify it, you are talking about a phenomenon known as Prandtl-Glauert Singularity (visible formation of cloud, known as ectoplasm, in moisture laden air). I am referring to a thing called Schliere (a photographic phenomenon, not visible to the naked eye but can be seen by a camera). A quick Google search of both those terms will clear up any potential misunderstandings.
In addition. the sidewinders exhaust was FAR louder than any audible sonic boom. acoustics recorded nothing but the overwhelming exhaust of the AIM-9 which was supersonic.
Thrust SSC's jets were infinitely quieter and at a lower frequency, so the sonic boom was easily heard.
the shock wave is compressed on the ground under the car and changes the shape of the bow shock. Thrust SSC was deliberately very heavy and long to prevent "It" from lifting just as the feather weight Bud car had done.
@1MtnBoy "In addition. the sidewinders exhaust was FAR louder than any audible sonic boom. "
Mmm...and a sidewinder rocket only burns for 2.2 sec. Selective memory in action? Anyone in front of the rocket would have heard the sonic boom before anything else.
"Thrust SSC's jets were infinitely quieter and at a lower frequency, so the sonic boom was easily heard."
Oh, bollocks. Infinitely quieter?!? Prove it. Supersonic gas (from the exhaust) is supersonic gas. You're inventing this.
I dont think so. 1st you must realize that sonic booms on the ground are far different than one at high altitude such as the Shuttle.
2nd. many supersonic airplanes including the X-15 had never been recorded producing a sonic boom above Mach 2. until about 1967 it was thought they did not produce one above Mach 2 until they were recorded.
3rd, the lifting is agreed to be the cause of the mach 1 shock wave compressing underneath the rear of the car.
@Camerameister1 #1 that is simply not true. I have 2 books that review the microphone testing on 3 dry lake bed locations and the tests themselves to prove the theory was sound, there were those that did not believe it would be produced at all, go read some books........
#2 since when did the Bud Rocket program ever involve any wind tunnel testing ? I believe that is up to you to prove,not the other way around, also since most of what your stating is not true in the slightest.
@1MtnBoy #! What on earth are you crapping on about this time? What theory or microphone? This is yet another cover up for your lack of education.
#2 Yet another red herring. Again you are deliberately misquoting me. I never said that it did. Everyone knows it was designed using the MkI eyeball. What I said is that the conclusions about what happened have never been proven in wind tunnel testing or computer modelling. You're the one trying to prove it's true. The onus is on you, not me.
@Camerameister1 WTH is a "MkI eyeball, did you just make that up, because that is not a system on the X-15 or the F-104 used for these tests, YES MICROPHONES ! go read how the testing was conducted. do you even have a clue ?
@Camerameister1 did you not ever read anything about Richard, Andy and the SSC design team? the single biggest reason the SSC was made so heavy and long was to avoid the very same situation the Bud team encountered, even Andy Green acknowledges the Bud car's run even though it was not recognized by the FIA, the SSC team still accepted it as fact and took steps to avoid the very same conditions on the SSC. there was also another British car that literally took-off on Black Rock earlier.
@1MtnBoy I've read heaps. I've even read most of Ron Ayers' blogs I don't recall them saying anything other than that they acknowledged the run was done and much was learned from it.
@Camerameister1 Yes, and Richard Noble has had several TV show documentaries and in 2 articles by Glynne Bowsher the Bud Car data was used throughout the initial design, specifically for weight considerations for shock wave impingement under the car.
@Camerameister1 your lack of data and twisted interpretation of the facts without offering any data to substantiate your claims despite the overwhelming video and photographic evidence you simply choose to discount with no merit otherwise.
@Camerameister1 you go and dispute the pictures and video all you want cupcake, it wont change a thing. and it wont change your lack of learning the basics to extrapolate any thing of value. i.e: facts
@Camerameister1 sorry, the pictures and video prove different, there is obvious evidence, you simply choose to ignore it. tell me what else could possibly lift the rear of the car at 630 mph ? this is exactly what I am talking about. you look at the same pictures and see nothing while 43 other engineers and professionals see a shock wave and it already accepted by those that have analyzed the footage to be the cause, disagreeing with them or me wont change the facts, hate to break it to you
@1MtnBoy Another red herring. There are no pictures of the Bud Rocket which show anything approximating that effect. Everything else you say is irrelevant. You have NO FACTS.
The lifting of the rear of the vehicle has already been explained. Google "A Review of Chuck Yeager's Letter of Testimony on the Budweiser Rocket Car" and see if you can understand it.
@Camerameister1 already did, remember you already threw out that challenge and I pointed out that Chuck AGREED with the video and the missing wheel tracks on the course. and there are 6 different photo's of the car, you simply choose to ignore them
@1MtnBoy You have an incredibly rubbery interpretation of what you call "facts"!
Now here are some facts: Google "the doppler effect and sonic booms" and look at the pictures (there's little likelihood you;ll understand the words), especially the one of Thrust SSC.
@Camerameister1 I have trouble understanding why you are using 8 syllable words in some of these references that are not relevant to the topic. you are making it way too complicated in an effort to discredit the recorded data. there arent enough textbooks for you to quote to sound intelligent, keep trying though
@Camerameister1 dream on. it will take more confusion than you can create to bother me. you still havent presented any evidence to the contrary yet just more blabbering about your own narcissistic opinions
@Camerameister1 its hard to misquote catharsis, run away you coward, run away from a discussion you are ill equipped to continue like an adult, you have to resort to name calling in your anger.
@1MtnBoy It is YOU who has no understanding of the "basics", not me. YOU are the one who said SOS was absolute, then you changed to pressure related. All the time it was temperature related and you blamed ME for getting it wrong! Goodness me, you ARE confused, aren't you dumpling?
@Camerameister1 NO, get it right Opie. I said the SOS was fixed " AT SEA LEVEL" here you go again remembering what you want to and ignoring everything else.
@Camerameister1 after Yeager's X-1A flights NACA and Langley did additional shock wave analysis for the F-104 in 1953 & Dryden again for the X-15 in 1956 for the final design committee, the analysis is not hypothetical and is easily demonstrated to anyone who can read.
@Camerameister1 you quoted me saying the compression lifted the car, then you said the car caused the commpression, which one is it genius ? having trouble keeping your guesses straight ?
correct, the same tracking systems used for the X-15 and the Shuttle orbiter(s) their accuracy has never been questioned by anyone credible. Accel data was NOT erratic, it was used in conjunction with RADAR acquisition. EAFB correlated ground track data to verify accelerometer records .
of the 3 tracking receivers used only "1" was picking up said truck and only for 8 seconds. the remaining 2 receivers did NOT receive a reflection from nearby moving objects.
@heathirving there were several amateur groups that came out to see the car run. some Ham radio guys etc. I heard some unsubstantiated rumors the BN/SCTA was out there. maybe what you heard ? STCA would have used a measured mile and trapped the sections with lights ( NHRA / IHRA uses today ). they had quite a few folks trying to take measurements.
everybody was still looked to EAFB for final estimate of the cars top speed though. they had the most experience and the most accurate equipment.
As great an achievement as this was and as brave a man as Stan Barrett is, it was based on accelerometer readings that were extremely erratic and the radar was trained on a truck. If the radar was focused on the Bud Rocket they wouldn't have spent 8 hours trying to work out the speed from the accelerometer readings. If they did break the sound barrier there'd have been visible shockwaves and an audible boom. The rear wheels lifting was due to the Sidewinder's thrust and transonic aerodynamics.
When Stan Barret broke the sound barrier the press was located behind the vehicle thus they didn't hear the sonic boom. There were 5 of us out on the dry lake bed who heard the sonic boom. Unfortunately the camera that was near the area where the Rocket Car went super sonic did not have a microphone so the sonic boom didn't get recorded. There was definately a sonic boom as I was one of the five out on that dry lake who heard it.
@HDTVJim "Unfortunately the camera that was near the area where the Rocket Car went super sonic did not have a microphone so the sonic boom didn't get recorded."
The noise is only one aspect. The camera would have had no difficulty recording the shockwave - if there was one - yet no pictures show this. Compare this with the published pictures of Thrust SSC which show a clear shockwave ahead of the vehicle. No vehicle of any kind can exceed the speed of sound without making these shockwaves.
Why does everyone say it was certified by the Airforce. The Airforce did not certify it only some airforce personnel certified it privately. The rear wheels lifted and this is taken as a sign of supersonic speed but Thrust SSC reported no such action at mach1 and beyond. No boom was heard even at a long distance as was the case with SSC. Time to bury this fraud.
Stan- who cares if it's official under FIA rules, this is too cool. What a great historical event. I like that it isn't mainstream. I can't imagine going that fast. WHAT A RUSH THAT MUST HAVE BEEN!! Congratulations on thinking out of the box in 1979 by using the sidewider. Meeka (FedEx)
They couldnt confirm to any FIA Rule System, because they where unable to refuel the Car in Time ... so the FIA LSR wasnt there aproach ... they really had liked a shot on it, but they were breaking the system, like Fosbury in Highjumping in 1968 ...
RADAR only has 1 speed limit. 186,000 miles per second. we use it to track galaxies you Idiot !!. If your statement was true my GPS wont work and we have no way to track the space shuttle or anything else in our atmosphere or in outer space that moves faster than Mach 1. Please stop spewing your ignorant opinion around as fact. you appear to lack very basic knowledge.
@Camerameister The Budweiser Rocket car was displayed at the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian has consigned the "supersonic" car to their storage facility in Indiana. The Budweiser Rocket car on display in the "back water" stock car museum is the one that got damaged at the Salt Flats.
It was, the shock wave is what lifted the rear wheels off the course.You can see it at 9:11.Yeager was NOT involved in the timing, Wm. "Pete" Knight was coordinator for the EAFB. Yeager's opinion does not change the fact a Sidewinder missle rocket engine Vmax is Mach 2.5.(Google that) this was recorded with the most accurate timing equipment available to anyone Military or civilian. fact is if this car had 1 more wheel and had ran one more time, it would be a record. boom or no boom.
@1MtnBoy See, this is what's wrong. The Bud Rocket attempt comes down opinions and justifications and defences. People like Craig Breedlove, Gary Gabelich, Richard Noble and Art Arfons don't behave this way. They are honest people who play by the rules and accept the results. They don't indulge in half-arsed publicity stunts and then try to claim something on the basis of this opinion or that.
Everything was wrong about this, from the timing methodology to Yeager's comments.
@Camerameister behave what "way"? polite and respectable and professional. only opinion is "yours". the fact that the AF certified this run has never been contested. that is the fact, whether you agree or not does not change that fact. nothing was wrong other than they snubbed the FIA and had their own party and invited the AF. they were the first to go Mach 1 on the ground, period.
Hauling out celebrities to justify something not proved by basic facts.
"they were the first to go Mach 1 on the ground, period."
The American predilection for putting "period" at the end of a sentence does not exonerate you from doubt. The AF was no an impartial body and the IHRA who did the timing were neither recognised nor competent. The decision on the Mach number was left to accelerometer values, something entirely irrelevant and it took the 8 hours!
@1MtnBoy The timing was a major issue, whether it worked perfectly or not. The IHRA chose to measure over 52.8 feet - 1/100 of a statute mile. Over such a short distance the margin for error is incredibly small.
BTW: the only shockwaves seen are from the rocket motor. The article I posted earlier explains why the Bud Rocket was highly unlikely to have gone supersonic. The pictures show no sign of shockwaves, yet Yeager and others claim they were responsible for lifting the rear off the ground.
@Camerameister the timing was never contested. and it worked all 3 runs.period. this is not the IHRA or IHBA or IJBA or SCCA . I have raced in all of these series over the years. and you know little if anything about the timing for this run at the flight test center. again. this was an 8 mile course. shockwaves eminate from the ground, the motor was spent and the sidewinder had been already been fired. the film DOES show it. and the driver felt it and BTW YOU were not there.
@Camerameister video feed form camera 5 is shown above. and YES I was there. I was 17 years old and I watched this car run on Sunday and Monday with 2 of my friends and their families camped on Rogers dry lake. where were you ?
@Camerameister Um, yeah I "WAS" there. I was there on Sunday & Monday with 2 of my friends and their families on Rogers dry lake. where INTF were you ? oh yeah thats right...............you were 1 yr old.
@1MtnBoy The USAF certified the run at 38 mph, due to a truck being picked up on radar. The final speed was left down to interpretation of accelerometer readings from the car itself, which would've been subject to extreme vibrations and the results were therefore highly dubious. That's not to say that Stan isn't a brave man or that he didn't go very fast, however it's no possible to say that he broke Mach 1 without recorded evidence of a sonic boom and accurate timing. I always thought he had.
@1MtnBoy Yeager's involvement was intended to give some gravitas to the attempt. His conclusions were entirely conjectural and not based on any scientific evidence. His experience of supersonics is at altitude and not on the ground.
The timing was ridiculous. The radar didn't work and the measuring distance was way too small and subject to fluctuations.
And unlike the Thrust SSC attempt, nobody heard a sonic bang and it was not recorded on film or tape.
@Camerameister there was never an intent to establish an FIA record, they were not invited to the party, hence conspiracy theories abound. your comment regarding the video does not support the recorded facts. the audio is very poor form the tracking station, nobody witnessing the timing run mentions a sonic boom because its probably a moot point with EAFB certifying the run. there is nobody present that contests the run. only FIA spooks and unbelievers such as yourself that were not there.
@Camerameister I was referring to the Bud car..............no audio in the tracking stations, HELLO ! the only recorded auio was on the sart line and the recovery area, again. YOU were not there. and again...........your incredulous "OPINION" YOU were not there.
@1MtnBoy "nobody witnessing the timing run mentions a sonic boom because its probably a moot point with EAFB certifying the run."
So even though NOBODY reported a sonic boom, the AF - who screwed up - have the ultimate say. Well fuck me. Radar does not measure Mach numbers. The AF radar was fixed on the wrong target. Yet somehow, despite all this evidence they are right?!?!?
@Camerameister according to you alone they "screwed up" you can attempt to explain their fault to them, I dont doubt the data, and yes if you race, timing & scoring DOES have the final say, sorry to break it to you. again your speculating on 3-4th hand information and guessing on the absence of a single fact and ignoring all other factual data presented. radar does not measure Mach numbers ? OMG.go away you know nothing about timing-scoring. what "other" target ? you were not there.
@1MtnBoy Radar does NOT measure mach numbers because it varies with temperature and that will not be an absolute value because of distance, altitude etc. Radar works off reflectivity. In this case, the radar picked up a truck some distance behind the Bud Rocket and measured it at 38mph. That is operator error.
Why did they have to resort to using accelerometer data for the final figure? Because they were waiting for a rose-tinted result. You were not there either.
@Camerameister ""(Radar does NOT measure mach numbers because it varies with temperature and that will not be an absolute value because of distance, altitude etc. )""
Do you even realize what you just said? RADAR does not work above Mach 1? are you kidding me ? and now a mysterious truck that just happened to have the exact same transponder as the Bud car ? oh please. that conspiracy died on the table in 79. next youll be telling me the earth is flat.
@Camerameister not as fucking stupid as you apparently. Mach is not a ratio in a gas you moron. dont try to quote high school physics to me, your are ill prepared. in a gas the speed of sound is 343 mps.RADAR measures distance and time. velocity and direction are "calculated" from that, not measured directly. Do you honestly believe you understand in the slightest what you are attempting to describe ? I dont. you cannot in the most basic terms describe how RADAR operates. even in principle.
@1MtnBoy "in a gas the speed of sound is 343 mps." at STP you idiot. It's temperature related. Mach is NOT an absolute value, it is a dimensionless number.
Radar does not measure Mach number. It may be able to extrapolate but that's a completely different thing. Come back when you've had some semblance of an education on such things. Right now you're backing yourself into a corner you can't defend. You don't know what you're talking about.
@1MtnBoy "The speed of sound varies according to the temperature of the air", Mechanics of Flight, A.C. Kermode p.320. There are other variables but all of them vary with temperature as the controlling factor.
With that in mind, Mach number is an expression of the relative airflow in relation to the local speed of sound. "in relation to" means it's a ratio, not an absolute number. Again see Kermode p.320.
That's just my old first year aeronautical engineering text.
@Camerameister stop quoting book articles and other people, you have nothing of merit on your own because you do not understand, if you did you would not have made the ignorant statements you have and keep pressing forward with other authors quotes. if you really understood what you were "trying" to talk about you would not need to refer to written texts in between replies, you could simply explain it yourself but you havent yet because you cannot. (radar wont work above mach 1 ?) get educated
Camerameister: "Radar does NOT measure mach numbers because it varies with temperature and that will not be an absolute value because of distance, altitude etc."
1MtnBoy: "Do you even realize what you just said? RADAR does not work above Mach 1?"
He said nothing of the sort. Obviously radar works above Mach 1, but it will measure it in a fixed value such as mph, rather than the variable figures that are Mach numbers.
@EdWoods4444 absolutely not true. it will read ANY variable assigned to it. it has been used by the USAF for decades on the ground and in the air at speeds above MACH 30 ! ( Apollo 10 re entry) go read a book !
@1MtnBoy He's right: the speed of sound is not a fixed speed and it varies with air temperature. He explained that to you, you didn't believe him, so he presented you with an expert opinion and now you say he doesn't understand what it says. I am well versed in aviation and the principles behind the sound barrier and it varies according to air temperature. He didn't say radar doesn't work above Mach 1, he said radar doesn't give Mach numbers and it can't because it can't read air temperature.
@EdWoods4444he tried to copy the Wkii page material to me much as you are doing, thats not well versed, lol. it is fixed at sea level and varies according to altitude. he said it was fixed period.
YES he did say RADAR is not "accurate" above MACH 1, he really did did say that.
RADAR does not have to be doppler to indicate speed and heading
I said no such thing. I said that he speed of sound varies with TEMPERATURE (as does every textbook and the NASA quote later on in this thread). You are deliberately misquoting me.
"YES he did say RADAR is not "accurate" above MACH 1, he really did did say that." This is an absolute fabrication - a lie. I said radar does not measure velocity in Mach numbers. You are deliberately misquoting me again.
@1MtnBoy He's right: the speed of sound is not a fixed speed and it varies with air temperature. He explained that to you, you didn't believe him, so he presented you with an expert opinion and now you say he doesn't understand what it says. I am well versed in aviation and the principles behind the sound barrier and it varies according to air temperature. He didn't say radar doesn't work above Mach 1, he said radar doesn't give Mach numbers and it can't because it can't read air temperature.
@1MtnBoy Ho, ho!! Do tell! Are you really saying that's actually wrong? (It's not and since when did a targeting radar require the target to obligingly carry a transponder?). Ha, ha! Silly boy.
Come on: your turn. You've lost every other round so far. Let's see if you can come up with something equally irrelevant. Carby jets anyone?
Then we'll get onto bow shock propagation and I'll give you another lesson in what you don't know and why everything else about this smells.
@Camerameister youve lost every round.........you have yet to present any verifiable facts. I have had many discussions with very intelligent people, You do not belong among them. go debate with your high school friends, they might be impressed. not me.
@1MtnBoy He has presented verifiable evidence: he quoted academic literature and you told him you weren't interested. You've insisted that radar can measure Mach numbers (it can't) and that Mach 1 is a fixed value (it isn't). I hate to tell you this but as an impartial observer with a knowledge of aerodynamics and thermodynamics, he's been right all along so far.
@EdWoods4444 ha "attempted" to challenge the definition of MACH 1. he quoted Wiki material, and not that well I might add, he contradicted himself just as you have done reading the same texts. Well, if your so convinced you are correct, go and tell the USAF that theyve been doing it wrong all these years , LMFAO. I know just a little about RADAR. you really should start out with a fresh approach, arguing with me over the use(s) of RADAR in our military will get you nowhere !!
Don't bother with him. He's an idiot who thinks he's a pilot.
Your point about the Spit at Mach .92 is one of two I've heard of. I heard of another one involving Winkle Brown at the same Mach number but I can't verify it.
"Radar does NOT measure mach numbers because it varies with temperature and that will not be an absolute value because of distance, altitude etc". OMGAWD, did you actually go to school at all ? you couldnt possibly sound any worse than that...........priceless !!
camerameister needs to pass his class this time.LoL
every time you make another dumbass reply I think I'll just paste this quote and the other one you posted so everyone else can see what a stooge you sound like.
@Camerameister OMG another textbook quote ? WRONG WRONG WRONG.
mach 1 in a gas is 343 mps, period. go look that up. 343 mps that IS an absolute value and once again you are quoting from some irrelevant book you picked up by mistake and ignorance, any idiot can google or wiki mach 1 and read that it is 343 mps in a gas. despite what you spewing
@1MtnBoy "mach 1 in a gas is 343 mps, period. go look that up"
You don't understand STP do you?340.9 metres/sec AT STP. That means it's not an absolute value, it is a dimensionless number. Do some reading and find out for yourself. Even Wiki says this.
@Camerameister sigh, OK last time. "FACTS" from the hip no books. the speed of sound ( Mach 1) in a gas is fixed at an absolute value of 343 meters per second. In our earth-type atmosphere it is relative to air density. at sea level with 29.99hg barometric pressure = 771mph. increase altitude or decrease density and mach 1 speed is reduced. Andy Greens SSC record 763mph average at Black Rocks 3,900ft and dry day, Mach 1 was estimated at 740 mph. WWII pilots routinely went past Mach 1 in dives
@1MtnBoy "WWII pilots routinely went past Mach 1 in dives" This is not true either. References to P-47s going supersonic have been disproved time and again. It is simply not possible for an aircraft of that era to go supersonic because the propeller creates too much drag.
It IS true that many aircraft reach critical Mach number and that resulted in structural failure on many occasions. Capt Eric Brown dived a Spitfire to its critical Mach number of .92 at which point it was out of control.
@Camerameister yes it is, it is a known recorded and accepted FACT.ask Yeager himself. Mustang & Thunderbolts routinely exceeded Mach 1 while diving at high altitudes it was know as "Compressability". aka control inertial coupling. MANY pilots DID lose control and could not recover. P-51 manuals I have, expressly warn pilots not to exceed given speeds in a dive at a given altitude, there is even a standard chart for it !!!!
@1MtnBoy "ask Yeager himself. Mustang & Thunderbolts routinely exceeded Mach 1 while diving at high altitudes it was know as "Compressability". aka control inertial coupling."
Not true.
Yes, you can read off the IAS and make a TAS calculation look like a speed value of >M1. It's not a true value. Ask NASA.
@Camerameister Early Spits flexed, Zero's fluttered. 51's & 47's nosed over hard. others would lock up entirely.as a pilot IAS is all I need to know. if my altitude is high enough aka ( low pressure) IAS can easily exceed mach 1 below 600. guys I know and talked to were freaking out at 500. they (we) were told as a rule never to exceed 500 IAS EVER.
@1MtnBoy So what? None of this is relevant and I have already shown that pilots who claimed to have exceeded the speed of sound in propeller-driven aircraft were confused by a quirk in the maths. They could not do so.
@Camerameister no you havent. you just made another opinionated claim that just happens to conflict with recorded history...........thats all. I task you to seek out a veteran pilot and ASK THEM YOURSELF IDOIT!!
you have never flown, your just spewing some crap you read somewhere and you believed it.
nobody even knew what they were experiencing in flight until engineers found out what their IAS was. right about time too.
@1MtnBoy Veteran pilots probably will say they broke it....because their instruments said they did. Pitot tubes start to give erratic readings at transonic speeds due to pressure build-up. Think about it: how is a pilot going to know how fast they're going other than by reading their instruments, which weren't designed for supersonic flight and give false readings? This isn't an opinion this is the truth, otherwise there'd be no need for Machmeters.
@1MtnBoy No, if you are approaching the speed of sound you'll need to know what that value is and that changes depending on altitude. You've just said the speed of sound is variable (correct) having again said it has a fixed value (incorrect). Considering that the speed of sound is still around 660 mph between 40,000 ft and 50,000 ft, around the limit of WWII fighters, there's no way they could break it in a dive at 500 mph. Even 600 was around the dive limit of the fast photo recon Spitfires.
You're in an aircraft designed for subsonic flight like an airliner and do 660 mph at 10,000 ft and you're fine as you're below Mach 1. You do 660 mph at 40,000 ft, you break the sound barrier and the aircraft goes out of control. IAS is only important if you intend to fly slow aircraft incapable of flying at transonic speeds.
@1MtnBoy ""P-51 manuals...expressly warn pilots not to exceed given speeds in a dive at a given altitude"
That's related to critical Mach number and control reversal. It is not the same as diving in excess of the speed of sound. Critical Mach number is the speed at which the freestream will be sonic at some point on the airframe. It will always be <M1. Control reversal was caused by structural flexing and while not entirely irrellevant, had little to do with it.
@Camerameister it is a function of altitude and IAS at THAT altitude AND barometric pressure. before takeoff hg is set in the window of the altimeter and corrected at altitude. lots of guys were cruising at 25-35k all the time. compressibility CAUSES reversal in SOME aircraft. it is due to the air over the top of the wing being accelerated beyond Mach 1 whilst the air surrounding the rest of the wing and the airframe is not.
@1MtnBoy No: compressibility is the air building up as the plane reaches transonic speeds and effecting the control surfaces. Inertia coupling is to do with the weight of the fuselage overcoming the aerodynamic forces that keep the aircraft stable in rolls. That's not the same as compressibility and effected thin-winged jet fighters not piston-engined aircraft. Yes, they were warned not to exceed their critical Mach that was generally around 0.8 - 0.9 Mach at which point they lost control.
@1MtnBoy P-51 pilots being warned not to exceed certain dive speeds is not the same as them being warned not to dive through the sound barrier. The planes also weren't equipped with Machmeters and therefore the air pressure building up in the pitot tubes gave all sorts of fantastic speeds, like the P-47s that apparently exceeded 700 mph! Look up the Wikipedia entry for the Machmeter. It also shows that the speed of sound varies with temperature.
@Camerameister If memory serves me right Sqd. Ldr. Martindale managed 0.92 Mach in a Mk. XI Spitfire on 27th April 1944, a true air speed of about 606 mph. He also had control failure and I think his prop came off. Those were research dives investigating the sound barrier and I think the conclusion everyone had was that the prop is like trying to force a giant disc through the sound barrier. It also starts to lose efficiency around 450 mph.
@1MtnBoy " "FACTS" from the hip no books. the speed of sound ( Mach 1) in a gas is fixed at an absolute value of 343 meters per second."
"increase altitude or decrease density and mach 1 speed is reduced. "
But now you've said the speed of sound is fixed at an absolute value of 343 m/s BUT that it changes due to air density. So you have now agreed with Camerameister that it is variable. That's where you are going wrong: you don't understand what it is you are saying.
@1MtnBoy " "FACTS" from the hip no books. the speed of sound ( Mach 1) in a gas is fixed at an absolute value of 343 meters per second."
"increase altitude or decrease density and mach 1 speed is reduced. "
But now you've said the speed of sound is fixed at an absolute value of 343 m/s BUT that it changes due to air density. So you have now agreed with Camerameister that it is variable. That's where you are going wrong: you don't understand what it is you are saying.
Speed: 739 mph.......Mach-1.01!
thevmanvj 1 week ago
Sorry, tenfiveracer, the Budweiser rocket car speed was never certified by the USAF.
The speed claims were made solely by the SOS group operating the car.
USAF states "Data produced by the Air Force Flight Test Center engineering section was provided at commercial rates to SOS (the Budweiser Rocket). It was the intent of the Air Force that such data be interpreted by that organization. The Air Force never inteded to give official sanction to test results..." Michael S. Alba, Lt. Col. USAF
630lsr 2 weeks ago
Congrats to stan barret , I remember as a boy watching this run on TV . The first to break the sound barrier on land ! As certified by the USAF !
tenfiveracer 1 month ago
Frauds
gamblemadman 3 months ago
Camera does not have a clue how the X-15 shock wave experiments were carried out on the "high range" what equipment was used and what the data recorded. I have 2 books right in front of me that explain the microphone locations and data recorded, yet he contests the information I quoted with no rationale.I still have the books right here and he still refuses to acknowledge the published facts but offers nothing else just his own conceited opinion with no regard for published books or reports.
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
The Budweiser Rocket Car did reach a speed of Mach 1.0106 breaking the Sound Barrier. The hybrid rocket engine and the sidewinder ran out of fuel just before the electronic timing trap to measure its speed. The EAFB radar clocked the car at Mach 1.0106. The speed of Sound at the dry lake bed air temp of 26F was 739 mph or 1,013 ft/sec. The Rocket Car exceeded that.
In order to see a shockwave the air has to have moisture in it. The dry lake bed of Muroc is in the desert and humidity was low.
HDTVJim 4 months ago
@HDTVJim "In order to see a shockwave the air has to have moisture in it. The dry lake bed of Muroc is in the desert and humidity was low."
This is not correct. The shockwaves generated by Thrust SSC were done so in dry air at Black Rock Lake and were certainly visible (Google it). They were visible both from the air and from the ground. Cameras can capture what your eye cannot always see. No such pictures exist of the Bud Rocket.
The rest is not supported by any submitted evidence.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 not true at all again. you really need to find another textbook cupcake cause your really sounding like an imbecile trying to discredit everyone else with this garbage you learned wrong, were you on dope during school hours? there are 6 different still pictures of the Bud Rocket with both the rear wheels off the ground and one video is right here in front of your face, you simply choose to ignore it, track marks on the course absent for over 600ft substantiate this.
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy Well, so far sport, you've been wrong on all aspects of aerodynamic theory.
And there are others who've already pointed it out.
None of those pictures shows any evidence of Shliere. I have a mate who is a scientific photographer and racing enthusiast and when I showed him he said there was not the slightest indication of it. Of course, I knew that already.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 you seem to forget, your not presenting any evidence to the contrary, you may claim whatever you like despite the facts but proving it is beyond your ability. the photo's have already been analyzed by folks much smarter than you or I and been substantiated, the scopes trial is over.....
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy Incidentally, the pictures of the Bud Rocket off the ground are yet another distraction to cover your lack of understanding of aerodynamic theory.
That the rear of the vehicle was off the ground has not been disputed by anyone, not even me.
The reason is up for dispute by anyone with a knowledge of aerodynamics. Perhaps then, you could explain why there was no damage to the surface under the vehicle? Thrust SSC destroyed the surface it ran on.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 you must have your own version of aerodynamics then, the rest of the professionals would point out that you are not presenting any evidence to prove your ill-conceived attempts you are simply contesting the recorded data with no sound basis just a lot of copying textbook quotes that are not relevant in an attempt to sound intelligent while you missed the basics by a mile..
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy My version? Goodness me, dear boy, you ARE confused. I quoted text books. You just complained and came up with nothing of any substance whatsoever.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 neither are you, you are simply disputing the claims without offering any proof of your observations, just contention with no data to back it up
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy I have quoted text books. You have ranted endlessly about things you don't understand in an effort to shake me off. Things like inertial coupling and other irrelevancies you clearly have no understanding of.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 name one ! lets go Einstein. I already proved you wrong on the pressure/ temperature relationship. what embarrassment would you like to endure next ?
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1MtnBoy "I already proved you wrong on the pressure/ temperature relationship."
Did you really?
It was me who said the Speed of Sound was TEMPERATURE related.
It was you who said - and I quote - "in a gas the speed of sound is 343 mps."
I'd say I won that one and others agree.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 I dont care how many text books you misquote because you lack basic understanding, quoting multiple syllable words doesn't make you smart while you overlook the basics
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1MtnBoy I haven't misquoted any of them. Show me where I have. It is YOU who consistently misquotes people.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@HDTVJim Incidentally, just to clarify it, you are talking about a phenomenon known as Prandtl-Glauert Singularity (visible formation of cloud, known as ectoplasm, in moisture laden air). I am referring to a thing called Schliere (a photographic phenomenon, not visible to the naked eye but can be seen by a camera). A quick Google search of both those terms will clear up any potential misunderstandings.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
Comment removed
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
In addition. the sidewinders exhaust was FAR louder than any audible sonic boom. acoustics recorded nothing but the overwhelming exhaust of the AIM-9 which was supersonic.
Thrust SSC's jets were infinitely quieter and at a lower frequency, so the sonic boom was easily heard.
the shock wave is compressed on the ground under the car and changes the shape of the bow shock. Thrust SSC was deliberately very heavy and long to prevent "It" from lifting just as the feather weight Bud car had done.
1MtnBoy 5 months ago
Comment removed
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy "In addition. the sidewinders exhaust was FAR louder than any audible sonic boom. "
Mmm...and a sidewinder rocket only burns for 2.2 sec. Selective memory in action? Anyone in front of the rocket would have heard the sonic boom before anything else.
"Thrust SSC's jets were infinitely quieter and at a lower frequency, so the sonic boom was easily heard."
Oh, bollocks. Infinitely quieter?!? Prove it. Supersonic gas (from the exhaust) is supersonic gas. You're inventing this.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
I dont think so. 1st you must realize that sonic booms on the ground are far different than one at high altitude such as the Shuttle.
2nd. many supersonic airplanes including the X-15 had never been recorded producing a sonic boom above Mach 2. until about 1967 it was thought they did not produce one above Mach 2 until they were recorded.
3rd, the lifting is agreed to be the cause of the mach 1 shock wave compressing underneath the rear of the car.
1MtnBoy 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1MtnBoy "you must realize that sonic booms on the ground are far different than one at high altitude such as the Shuttle."
Ho, ho! Really? How so? This should be good. And the proof - should there be any - will be even better.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy "it was thought they did not produce one above Mach 2 until they were recorded."
Nonsense. They knew. It had just not been recorded. The X-15 flew so high that the shock had possibly dissipated before it hit the ground observers.
"the lifting is agreed to be the cause of the mach 1 shock wave compressing underneath the rear of the car."
Where is the wind tunnel testing and computer modelling to prove this nonsense? It's hypothetical and demonstrably wrong.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 #1 that is simply not true. I have 2 books that review the microphone testing on 3 dry lake bed locations and the tests themselves to prove the theory was sound, there were those that did not believe it would be produced at all, go read some books........
#2 since when did the Bud Rocket program ever involve any wind tunnel testing ? I believe that is up to you to prove,not the other way around, also since most of what your stating is not true in the slightest.
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy #! What on earth are you crapping on about this time? What theory or microphone? This is yet another cover up for your lack of education.
#2 Yet another red herring. Again you are deliberately misquoting me. I never said that it did. Everyone knows it was designed using the MkI eyeball. What I said is that the conclusions about what happened have never been proven in wind tunnel testing or computer modelling. You're the one trying to prove it's true. The onus is on you, not me.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 WTH is a "MkI eyeball, did you just make that up, because that is not a system on the X-15 or the F-104 used for these tests, YES MICROPHONES ! go read how the testing was conducted. do you even have a clue ?
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy What on earth are you ranting about?
Are you drunk?
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 did you not ever read anything about Richard, Andy and the SSC design team? the single biggest reason the SSC was made so heavy and long was to avoid the very same situation the Bud team encountered, even Andy Green acknowledges the Bud car's run even though it was not recognized by the FIA, the SSC team still accepted it as fact and took steps to avoid the very same conditions on the SSC. there was also another British car that literally took-off on Black Rock earlier.
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy I've read heaps. I've even read most of Ron Ayers' blogs I don't recall them saying anything other than that they acknowledged the run was done and much was learned from it.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 Yes, and Richard Noble has had several TV show documentaries and in 2 articles by Glynne Bowsher the Bud Car data was used throughout the initial design, specifically for weight considerations for shock wave impingement under the car.
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy None of which proves it was supersonic.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 I would like you to tell me just why not ? it wasnt the keebler elves that lifted the car
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy What are you talking about now?
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 your lack of data and twisted interpretation of the facts without offering any data to substantiate your claims despite the overwhelming video and photographic evidence you simply choose to discount with no merit otherwise.
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy "your lack of data"
So far the only person with no data is you.
"twisted interpretation of the facts"
Backed up by sound aerodynamic theory. It's only twisted in your mind.
"without offering any data"
No just sound aerodynamic theory.
"overwhelming video and photographic evidence"
None of which shows any evidence of transonic shock.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 you go and dispute the pictures and video all you want cupcake, it wont change a thing. and it wont change your lack of learning the basics to extrapolate any thing of value. i.e: facts
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy There's nothing to dispute sweetcheeks. The pictures show no evidence of transonic behaviour.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 sorry, the pictures and video prove different, there is obvious evidence, you simply choose to ignore it. tell me what else could possibly lift the rear of the car at 630 mph ? this is exactly what I am talking about. you look at the same pictures and see nothing while 43 other engineers and professionals see a shock wave and it already accepted by those that have analyzed the footage to be the cause, disagreeing with them or me wont change the facts, hate to break it to you
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy Another red herring. There are no pictures of the Bud Rocket which show anything approximating that effect. Everything else you say is irrelevant. You have NO FACTS.
The lifting of the rear of the vehicle has already been explained. Google "A Review of Chuck Yeager's Letter of Testimony on the Budweiser Rocket Car" and see if you can understand it.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 already did, remember you already threw out that challenge and I pointed out that Chuck AGREED with the video and the missing wheel tracks on the course. and there are 6 different photo's of the car, you simply choose to ignore them
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy None of the photographic evidence; video or photo, show any evidence of transonic behaviour.
That the wheels were off the ground is not disputed. Don't bring that up again. It's a waste of time.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 only your time
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy You have an incredibly rubbery interpretation of what you call "facts"!
Now here are some facts: Google "the doppler effect and sonic booms" and look at the pictures (there's little likelihood you;ll understand the words), especially the one of Thrust SSC.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 I have trouble understanding why you are using 8 syllable words in some of these references that are not relevant to the topic. you are making it way too complicated in an effort to discredit the recorded data. there arent enough textbooks for you to quote to sound intelligent, keep trying though
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy Having trouble keeping up? LOL!! That's fucking hilarious!
No wonder you keep telling me to stop quoting!
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 dream on. it will take more confusion than you can create to bother me. you still havent presented any evidence to the contrary yet just more blabbering about your own narcissistic opinions
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy Scared? LOL!!!
Now, where's your aerodynamic theory? Come on, I wanna know what you've got because it looks pretty flimsy if you can't understand the basics.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 married for 20 years , not scared of anybody anymore, lol
you still havent named one............
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy What?
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 who
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy LOL!!
Moron.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 yup here comes the name calling in lieu of a rational response
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 the fact that I am correct is irrelevant, LMAO
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy You're not. You never got it, did you?
You just kept misquoting me!
LOL!!
CYA.
Cunt.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 its hard to misquote catharsis, run away you coward, run away from a discussion you are ill equipped to continue like an adult, you have to resort to name calling in your anger.
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy It is YOU who has no understanding of the "basics", not me. YOU are the one who said SOS was absolute, then you changed to pressure related. All the time it was temperature related and you blamed ME for getting it wrong! Goodness me, you ARE confused, aren't you dumpling?
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 NO, get it right Opie. I said the SOS was fixed " AT SEA LEVEL" here you go again remembering what you want to and ignoring everything else.
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy No you didn't. You said:
"the speed of sound ( Mach 1) in a gas is fixed at an absolute value of 343 meters per second."
You never even mentioned temperature.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 your right I didnt, I mentioned "SEA LEVEL"
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy Which is also irrelevant. It just happens to be where the TEMPERATURE is usually highest.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 irrelevant ? why ?
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy Because the speed of sound is temperature related.
Google "speed of sound calculator" and see for yourself.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 then explain how there are no sound shock waves in a vacuum regardless of the temperature.
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 after Yeager's X-1A flights NACA and Langley did additional shock wave analysis for the F-104 in 1953 & Dryden again for the X-15 in 1956 for the final design committee, the analysis is not hypothetical and is easily demonstrated to anyone who can read.
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy Let me quote you:
"the lifting is agreed to be the cause of the mach 1 shock wave compressing underneath the rear of the car."
How does the lifting of the vehicle cause shock wave compression? Mmm?
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 again, your confused. it's the other way around. you just quoted me but then contradicted yourself.
the vehicle lifting does not cause the shock wave, the shock wave lifted the car.
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
@1MtnBoy "again, your confused. it's the other way around. you just quoted me but then contradicted yourself."
You're really good at this. Show me where contradicted myself.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
@Camerameister1 you quoted me saying the compression lifted the car, then you said the car caused the commpression, which one is it genius ? having trouble keeping your guesses straight ?
1MtnBoy 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1MtnBoy No, here's what I said:
"the lifting is agreed to be the cause of the mach 1 shock wave compressing underneath the rear of the car."
How does the lifting of the vehicle cause shock wave compression?
Camerameister1 4 months ago
correct, the same tracking systems used for the X-15 and the Shuttle orbiter(s) their accuracy has never been questioned by anyone credible. Accel data was NOT erratic, it was used in conjunction with RADAR acquisition. EAFB correlated ground track data to verify accelerometer records .
of the 3 tracking receivers used only "1" was picking up said truck and only for 8 seconds. the remaining 2 receivers did NOT receive a reflection from nearby moving objects.
1MtnBoy 5 months ago
@1MtnBoy
i read a book in the land speed record and there apparently was also a speed trap,likned by photoelectric beams. i maybe wrong
heathirving 5 months ago
@heathirving there were several amateur groups that came out to see the car run. some Ham radio guys etc. I heard some unsubstantiated rumors the BN/SCTA was out there. maybe what you heard ? STCA would have used a measured mile and trapped the sections with lights ( NHRA / IHRA uses today ). they had quite a few folks trying to take measurements.
everybody was still looked to EAFB for final estimate of the cars top speed though. they had the most experience and the most accurate equipment.
1MtnBoy 5 months ago
As great an achievement as this was and as brave a man as Stan Barrett is, it was based on accelerometer readings that were extremely erratic and the radar was trained on a truck. If the radar was focused on the Bud Rocket they wouldn't have spent 8 hours trying to work out the speed from the accelerometer readings. If they did break the sound barrier there'd have been visible shockwaves and an audible boom. The rear wheels lifting was due to the Sidewinder's thrust and transonic aerodynamics.
EdWoods4444 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you guys are wasting your time, this dead horse was beaten to a pulp many moons ago by folks alot smarter than me with much more information.
1MtnBoy 5 months ago
Mach 1= 660mph
Psycho9263 5 months ago
@Psycho9263 Mach 1 varies with altitude and air temperature.
EdWoods4444 5 months ago
@EdWoods4444 I'm aware of that, so I gave the speed below 10,000 feet.
Psycho9263 5 months ago
@Psycho9263 Fair enough, though you didn't actually state as much.
EdWoods4444 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Psycho9263 Fair enough, though you didn't actually state as much.
EdWoods4444 5 months ago
When Stan Barret broke the sound barrier the press was located behind the vehicle thus they didn't hear the sonic boom. There were 5 of us out on the dry lake bed who heard the sonic boom. Unfortunately the camera that was near the area where the Rocket Car went super sonic did not have a microphone so the sonic boom didn't get recorded. There was definately a sonic boom as I was one of the five out on that dry lake who heard it.
HDTVJim 6 months ago
@HDTVJim "Unfortunately the camera that was near the area where the Rocket Car went super sonic did not have a microphone so the sonic boom didn't get recorded."
The noise is only one aspect. The camera would have had no difficulty recording the shockwave - if there was one - yet no pictures show this. Compare this with the published pictures of Thrust SSC which show a clear shockwave ahead of the vehicle. No vehicle of any kind can exceed the speed of sound without making these shockwaves.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
Why does everyone say it was certified by the Airforce. The Airforce did not certify it only some airforce personnel certified it privately. The rear wheels lifted and this is taken as a sign of supersonic speed but Thrust SSC reported no such action at mach1 and beyond. No boom was heard even at a long distance as was the case with SSC. Time to bury this fraud.
fairplaynationalist2 7 months ago 2
Stan- who cares if it's official under FIA rules, this is too cool. What a great historical event. I like that it isn't mainstream. I can't imagine going that fast. WHAT A RUSH THAT MUST HAVE BEEN!! Congratulations on thinking out of the box in 1979 by using the sidewider. Meeka (FedEx)
meekamisty 7 months ago
Frauds
gamblemadman 7 months ago
They couldnt confirm to any FIA Rule System, because they where unable to refuel the Car in Time ... so the FIA LSR wasnt there aproach ... they really had liked a shot on it, but they were breaking the system, like Fosbury in Highjumping in 1968 ...
Bettie36 7 months ago
I remember this documentary, what was the name of it?
3mustardMoNkEyS 8 months ago
Comment removed
Camerameister 8 months ago
RADAR only has 1 speed limit. 186,000 miles per second. we use it to track galaxies you Idiot !!. If your statement was true my GPS wont work and we have no way to track the space shuttle or anything else in our atmosphere or in outer space that moves faster than Mach 1. Please stop spewing your ignorant opinion around as fact. you appear to lack very basic knowledge.
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
If this was really the first vehicle to go supersonic, it would be in the Smithsonian, not some back water stock car museum in Alabama.
Camerameister 8 months ago
@Camerameister your opinion again
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@Camerameister The Budweiser Rocket car was displayed at the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian has consigned the "supersonic" car to their storage facility in Indiana. The Budweiser Rocket car on display in the "back water" stock car museum is the one that got damaged at the Salt Flats.
fiat38 1 month ago
@fiat38 Just out of interest;
1) What did the Smithsonian say about it?
2) Why was it removed and
3) What damage was done and at which salt flats?
Camerameister1 2 weeks ago
It was, the shock wave is what lifted the rear wheels off the course.You can see it at 9:11.Yeager was NOT involved in the timing, Wm. "Pete" Knight was coordinator for the EAFB. Yeager's opinion does not change the fact a Sidewinder missle rocket engine Vmax is Mach 2.5.(Google that) this was recorded with the most accurate timing equipment available to anyone Military or civilian. fact is if this car had 1 more wheel and had ran one more time, it would be a record. boom or no boom.
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy See, this is what's wrong. The Bud Rocket attempt comes down opinions and justifications and defences. People like Craig Breedlove, Gary Gabelich, Richard Noble and Art Arfons don't behave this way. They are honest people who play by the rules and accept the results. They don't indulge in half-arsed publicity stunts and then try to claim something on the basis of this opinion or that.
Everything was wrong about this, from the timing methodology to Yeager's comments.
Camerameister 8 months ago
@Camerameister behave what "way"? polite and respectable and professional. only opinion is "yours". the fact that the AF certified this run has never been contested. that is the fact, whether you agree or not does not change that fact. nothing was wrong other than they snubbed the FIA and had their own party and invited the AF. they were the first to go Mach 1 on the ground, period.
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy "behave what "way"?"
Hauling out celebrities to justify something not proved by basic facts.
"they were the first to go Mach 1 on the ground, period."
The American predilection for putting "period" at the end of a sentence does not exonerate you from doubt. The AF was no an impartial body and the IHRA who did the timing were neither recognised nor competent. The decision on the Mach number was left to accelerometer values, something entirely irrelevant and it took the 8 hours!
Camerameister 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy The timing was a major issue, whether it worked perfectly or not. The IHRA chose to measure over 52.8 feet - 1/100 of a statute mile. Over such a short distance the margin for error is incredibly small.
BTW: the only shockwaves seen are from the rocket motor. The article I posted earlier explains why the Bud Rocket was highly unlikely to have gone supersonic. The pictures show no sign of shockwaves, yet Yeager and others claim they were responsible for lifting the rear off the ground.
Camerameister 8 months ago
@Camerameister the timing was never contested. and it worked all 3 runs.period. this is not the IHRA or IHBA or IJBA or SCCA . I have raced in all of these series over the years. and you know little if anything about the timing for this run at the flight test center. again. this was an 8 mile course. shockwaves eminate from the ground, the motor was spent and the sidewinder had been already been fired. the film DOES show it. and the driver felt it and BTW YOU were not there.
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy "Period" does not mean you point is uncontested.
You were not there either.
Show me the pictures of the shockwaves, which would have been very visible in the lighting conditions.
Camerameister 8 months ago
@Camerameister video feed form camera 5 is shown above. and YES I was there. I was 17 years old and I watched this car run on Sunday and Monday with 2 of my friends and their families camped on Rogers dry lake. where were you ?
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@Camerameister Um, yeah I "WAS" there. I was there on Sunday & Monday with 2 of my friends and their families on Rogers dry lake. where INTF were you ? oh yeah thats right...............you were 1 yr old.
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy The USAF certified the run at 38 mph, due to a truck being picked up on radar. The final speed was left down to interpretation of accelerometer readings from the car itself, which would've been subject to extreme vibrations and the results were therefore highly dubious. That's not to say that Stan isn't a brave man or that he didn't go very fast, however it's no possible to say that he broke Mach 1 without recorded evidence of a sonic boom and accurate timing. I always thought he had.
EdWoods4444 5 months ago
@1MtnBoy Yeager's involvement was intended to give some gravitas to the attempt. His conclusions were entirely conjectural and not based on any scientific evidence. His experience of supersonics is at altitude and not on the ground.
The timing was ridiculous. The radar didn't work and the measuring distance was way too small and subject to fluctuations.
And unlike the Thrust SSC attempt, nobody heard a sonic bang and it was not recorded on film or tape.
Camerameister 8 months ago
@Camerameister there was never an intent to establish an FIA record, they were not invited to the party, hence conspiracy theories abound. your comment regarding the video does not support the recorded facts. the audio is very poor form the tracking station, nobody witnessing the timing run mentions a sonic boom because its probably a moot point with EAFB certifying the run. there is nobody present that contests the run. only FIA spooks and unbelievers such as yourself that were not there.
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy "there was never an intent to establish an FIA record"
I couldn't care less about this.
"your comment regarding the video does not support the recorded facts."
Yes it does! The Thrust SSC made a sonic boom audible for miles around.
"FIA spooks and unbelievers such as yourself that were not there."
The levels of collective competence were such that I am incredulous that ANYONE could believe it for reasons other than wishful thinking.
Camerameister 8 months ago
@Camerameister I was referring to the Bud car..............no audio in the tracking stations, HELLO ! the only recorded auio was on the sart line and the recovery area, again. YOU were not there. and again...........your incredulous "OPINION" YOU were not there.
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1MtnBoy "no audio in the tracking stations, HELLO ! the only recorded auio was on the sart line and the recovery area, again."
And NO WITNESSES reported a sonic bang either at the range or in the surrounding area. Care to explain that little anomaly?
Camerameister 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy "nobody witnessing the timing run mentions a sonic boom because its probably a moot point with EAFB certifying the run."
So even though NOBODY reported a sonic boom, the AF - who screwed up - have the ultimate say. Well fuck me. Radar does not measure Mach numbers. The AF radar was fixed on the wrong target. Yet somehow, despite all this evidence they are right?!?!?
Camerameister 8 months ago
@Camerameister according to you alone they "screwed up" you can attempt to explain their fault to them, I dont doubt the data, and yes if you race, timing & scoring DOES have the final say, sorry to break it to you. again your speculating on 3-4th hand information and guessing on the absence of a single fact and ignoring all other factual data presented. radar does not measure Mach numbers ? OMG.go away you know nothing about timing-scoring. what "other" target ? you were not there.
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy Radar does NOT measure mach numbers because it varies with temperature and that will not be an absolute value because of distance, altitude etc. Radar works off reflectivity. In this case, the radar picked up a truck some distance behind the Bud Rocket and measured it at 38mph. That is operator error.
Why did they have to resort to using accelerometer data for the final figure? Because they were waiting for a rose-tinted result. You were not there either.
Camerameister 8 months ago
@Camerameister ""(Radar does NOT measure mach numbers because it varies with temperature and that will not be an absolute value because of distance, altitude etc. )""
Do you even realize what you just said? RADAR does not work above Mach 1? are you kidding me ? and now a mysterious truck that just happened to have the exact same transponder as the Bud car ? oh please. that conspiracy died on the table in 79. next youll be telling me the earth is flat.
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy "Do you even realize what you just said? RADAR does not work above Mach 1?"
How fucking stupid are you? Mach is not a velocity, it's a ratio. Radar measures velocity.
Camerameister 8 months ago
@Camerameister not as fucking stupid as you apparently. Mach is not a ratio in a gas you moron. dont try to quote high school physics to me, your are ill prepared. in a gas the speed of sound is 343 mps.RADAR measures distance and time. velocity and direction are "calculated" from that, not measured directly. Do you honestly believe you understand in the slightest what you are attempting to describe ? I dont. you cannot in the most basic terms describe how RADAR operates. even in principle.
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy "in a gas the speed of sound is 343 mps." at STP you idiot. It's temperature related. Mach is NOT an absolute value, it is a dimensionless number.
Radar does not measure Mach number. It may be able to extrapolate but that's a completely different thing. Come back when you've had some semblance of an education on such things. Right now you're backing yourself into a corner you can't defend. You don't know what you're talking about.
Camerameister 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy "The speed of sound varies according to the temperature of the air", Mechanics of Flight, A.C. Kermode p.320. There are other variables but all of them vary with temperature as the controlling factor.
With that in mind, Mach number is an expression of the relative airflow in relation to the local speed of sound. "in relation to" means it's a ratio, not an absolute number. Again see Kermode p.320.
That's just my old first year aeronautical engineering text.
But it didn't happen anyway
Camerameister 8 months ago
@Camerameister stop quoting book articles and other people, you have nothing of merit on your own because you do not understand, if you did you would not have made the ignorant statements you have and keep pressing forward with other authors quotes. if you really understood what you were "trying" to talk about you would not need to refer to written texts in between replies, you could simply explain it yourself but you havent yet because you cannot. (radar wont work above mach 1 ?) get educated
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy "radar wont work above mach 1 "
Show me where I said this. I didn't. I said radar doesn't measure Mach number. I don't think I could have made it any clearer.
Camerameister 8 months ago
@Camerameister read above I quoted you word for word
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1MtnBoy "read above I quoted you word for word" ...and clearly did not understand a word of it.
Come on cunt. Show me where that's wrong.
Camerameister 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy You didn't quote him word for word.
Camerameister: "Radar does NOT measure mach numbers because it varies with temperature and that will not be an absolute value because of distance, altitude etc."
1MtnBoy: "Do you even realize what you just said? RADAR does not work above Mach 1?"
He said nothing of the sort. Obviously radar works above Mach 1, but it will measure it in a fixed value such as mph, rather than the variable figures that are Mach numbers.
EdWoods4444 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EdWoods4444 absolutely not true. it will read ANY variable assigned to it. it has been used by the USAF for decades on the ground and in the air at speeds above MACH 30 ! ( Apollo 10 re entry) go read a book !
1MtnBoy 5 months ago
@1MtnBoy He's right: the speed of sound is not a fixed speed and it varies with air temperature. He explained that to you, you didn't believe him, so he presented you with an expert opinion and now you say he doesn't understand what it says. I am well versed in aviation and the principles behind the sound barrier and it varies according to air temperature. He didn't say radar doesn't work above Mach 1, he said radar doesn't give Mach numbers and it can't because it can't read air temperature.
EdWoods4444 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EdWoods4444he tried to copy the Wkii page material to me much as you are doing, thats not well versed, lol. it is fixed at sea level and varies according to altitude. he said it was fixed period.
YES he did say RADAR is not "accurate" above MACH 1, he really did did say that.
RADAR does not have to be doppler to indicate speed and heading
1MtnBoy 5 months ago
@1MtnBoy "he said it was fixed period."
I said no such thing. I said that he speed of sound varies with TEMPERATURE (as does every textbook and the NASA quote later on in this thread). You are deliberately misquoting me.
"YES he did say RADAR is not "accurate" above MACH 1, he really did did say that." This is an absolute fabrication - a lie. I said radar does not measure velocity in Mach numbers. You are deliberately misquoting me again.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EdWoods4444 NO. he used Doppler as an explanation of how RADAR operates and that is not a definition nor is it true.
1MtnBoy 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1MtnBoy He's right: the speed of sound is not a fixed speed and it varies with air temperature. He explained that to you, you didn't believe him, so he presented you with an expert opinion and now you say he doesn't understand what it says. I am well versed in aviation and the principles behind the sound barrier and it varies according to air temperature. He didn't say radar doesn't work above Mach 1, he said radar doesn't give Mach numbers and it can't because it can't read air temperature.
EdWoods4444 5 months ago
@1MtnBoy "you cannot in the most basic terms describe how RADAR operates. even in principle."
Doppler shift.
Done.
Camerameister 8 months ago
@Camerameister lmao, thats all I am gonna say, lmao. doppler shift.
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy Ho, ho!! Do tell! Are you really saying that's actually wrong? (It's not and since when did a targeting radar require the target to obligingly carry a transponder?). Ha, ha! Silly boy.
Come on: your turn. You've lost every other round so far. Let's see if you can come up with something equally irrelevant. Carby jets anyone?
Then we'll get onto bow shock propagation and I'll give you another lesson in what you don't know and why everything else about this smells.
Camerameister 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Camerameister youve lost every round.........you have yet to present any verifiable facts. I have had many discussions with very intelligent people, You do not belong among them. go debate with your high school friends, they might be impressed. not me.
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy He has presented verifiable evidence: he quoted academic literature and you told him you weren't interested. You've insisted that radar can measure Mach numbers (it can't) and that Mach 1 is a fixed value (it isn't). I hate to tell you this but as an impartial observer with a knowledge of aerodynamics and thermodynamics, he's been right all along so far.
EdWoods4444 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EdWoods4444 ha "attempted" to challenge the definition of MACH 1. he quoted Wiki material, and not that well I might add, he contradicted himself just as you have done reading the same texts. Well, if your so convinced you are correct, go and tell the USAF that theyve been doing it wrong all these years , LMFAO. I know just a little about RADAR. you really should start out with a fresh approach, arguing with me over the use(s) of RADAR in our military will get you nowhere !!
1MtnBoy 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EdWoods4444 he cannot simply explain how it operates or how it is used in the field such as sanctioned racing events. timing and scoring.
1MtnBoy 5 months ago
@EdWoods4444 Thanks Ed.
Don't bother with him. He's an idiot who thinks he's a pilot.
Your point about the Spit at Mach .92 is one of two I've heard of. I heard of another one involving Winkle Brown at the same Mach number but I can't verify it.
Camerameister1 4 months ago
"Radar does NOT measure mach numbers because it varies with temperature and that will not be an absolute value because of distance, altitude etc". OMGAWD, did you actually go to school at all ? you couldnt possibly sound any worse than that...........priceless !!
camerameister needs to pass his class this time.LoL
every time you make another dumbass reply I think I'll just paste this quote and the other one you posted so everyone else can see what a stooge you sound like.
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy Mach number is NOT an absolute value. It is a dimensionless number.
"...the speed of sound in calorically perfect gas is a function of temperature only." John D. Anderson "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics"
Camerameister 8 months ago
@Camerameister OMG another textbook quote ? WRONG WRONG WRONG.
mach 1 in a gas is 343 mps, period. go look that up. 343 mps that IS an absolute value and once again you are quoting from some irrelevant book you picked up by mistake and ignorance, any idiot can google or wiki mach 1 and read that it is 343 mps in a gas. despite what you spewing
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy "mach 1 in a gas is 343 mps, period. go look that up"
You don't understand STP do you?340.9 metres/sec AT STP. That means it's not an absolute value, it is a dimensionless number. Do some reading and find out for yourself. Even Wiki says this.
Camerameister 8 months ago
@Camerameister sigh, OK last time. "FACTS" from the hip no books. the speed of sound ( Mach 1) in a gas is fixed at an absolute value of 343 meters per second. In our earth-type atmosphere it is relative to air density. at sea level with 29.99hg barometric pressure = 771mph. increase altitude or decrease density and mach 1 speed is reduced. Andy Greens SSC record 763mph average at Black Rocks 3,900ft and dry day, Mach 1 was estimated at 740 mph. WWII pilots routinely went past Mach 1 in dives
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy "WWII pilots routinely went past Mach 1 in dives" This is not true either. References to P-47s going supersonic have been disproved time and again. It is simply not possible for an aircraft of that era to go supersonic because the propeller creates too much drag.
It IS true that many aircraft reach critical Mach number and that resulted in structural failure on many occasions. Capt Eric Brown dived a Spitfire to its critical Mach number of .92 at which point it was out of control.
Camerameister 8 months ago
@Camerameister yes it is, it is a known recorded and accepted FACT.ask Yeager himself. Mustang & Thunderbolts routinely exceeded Mach 1 while diving at high altitudes it was know as "Compressability". aka control inertial coupling. MANY pilots DID lose control and could not recover. P-51 manuals I have, expressly warn pilots not to exceed given speeds in a dive at a given altitude, there is even a standard chart for it !!!!
you are dead wrong again
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy "ask Yeager himself. Mustang & Thunderbolts routinely exceeded Mach 1 while diving at high altitudes it was know as "Compressability". aka control inertial coupling."
Not true.
Yes, you can read off the IAS and make a TAS calculation look like a speed value of >M1. It's not a true value. Ask NASA.
Camerameister 8 months ago
@Camerameister Early Spits flexed, Zero's fluttered. 51's & 47's nosed over hard. others would lock up entirely.as a pilot IAS is all I need to know. if my altitude is high enough aka ( low pressure) IAS can easily exceed mach 1 below 600. guys I know and talked to were freaking out at 500. they (we) were told as a rule never to exceed 500 IAS EVER.
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy So what? None of this is relevant and I have already shown that pilots who claimed to have exceeded the speed of sound in propeller-driven aircraft were confused by a quirk in the maths. They could not do so.
This is a dead point.
Camerameister 8 months ago
@Camerameister no you havent. you just made another opinionated claim that just happens to conflict with recorded history...........thats all. I task you to seek out a veteran pilot and ASK THEM YOURSELF IDOIT!!
you have never flown, your just spewing some crap you read somewhere and you believed it.
nobody even knew what they were experiencing in flight until engineers found out what their IAS was. right about time too.
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy Veteran pilots probably will say they broke it....because their instruments said they did. Pitot tubes start to give erratic readings at transonic speeds due to pressure build-up. Think about it: how is a pilot going to know how fast they're going other than by reading their instruments, which weren't designed for supersonic flight and give false readings? This isn't an opinion this is the truth, otherwise there'd be no need for Machmeters.
EdWoods4444 5 months ago
@1MtnBoy No, if you are approaching the speed of sound you'll need to know what that value is and that changes depending on altitude. You've just said the speed of sound is variable (correct) having again said it has a fixed value (incorrect). Considering that the speed of sound is still around 660 mph between 40,000 ft and 50,000 ft, around the limit of WWII fighters, there's no way they could break it in a dive at 500 mph. Even 600 was around the dive limit of the fast photo recon Spitfires.
EdWoods4444 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"as a pilot IAS is all I need to know."
You're in an aircraft designed for subsonic flight like an airliner and do 660 mph at 10,000 ft and you're fine as you're below Mach 1. You do 660 mph at 40,000 ft, you break the sound barrier and the aircraft goes out of control. IAS is only important if you intend to fly slow aircraft incapable of flying at transonic speeds.
EdWoods4444 5 months ago
@1MtnBoy ""P-51 manuals...expressly warn pilots not to exceed given speeds in a dive at a given altitude"
That's related to critical Mach number and control reversal. It is not the same as diving in excess of the speed of sound. Critical Mach number is the speed at which the freestream will be sonic at some point on the airframe. It will always be <M1. Control reversal was caused by structural flexing and while not entirely irrellevant, had little to do with it.
Camerameister 8 months ago
@Camerameister it is a function of altitude and IAS at THAT altitude AND barometric pressure. before takeoff hg is set in the window of the altimeter and corrected at altitude. lots of guys were cruising at 25-35k all the time. compressibility CAUSES reversal in SOME aircraft. it is due to the air over the top of the wing being accelerated beyond Mach 1 whilst the air surrounding the rest of the wing and the airframe is not.
1MtnBoy 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy Irrelevant.
Camerameister 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1MtnBoy You still haven't explained;
1) why there was no sonic boom and none of the photography out on the course shows any shockwaves,
2) why the final figure was established from accelerometer data and
3) why it took 8 hours to announce that it was supersonic. That would have been immediately apparent if it was true.
Camerameister 8 months ago
@1MtnBoy No: compressibility is the air building up as the plane reaches transonic speeds and effecting the control surfaces. Inertia coupling is to do with the weight of the fuselage overcoming the aerodynamic forces that keep the aircraft stable in rolls. That's not the same as compressibility and effected thin-winged jet fighters not piston-engined aircraft. Yes, they were warned not to exceed their critical Mach that was generally around 0.8 - 0.9 Mach at which point they lost control.
EdWoods4444 5 months ago
@1MtnBoy P-51 pilots being warned not to exceed certain dive speeds is not the same as them being warned not to dive through the sound barrier. The planes also weren't equipped with Machmeters and therefore the air pressure building up in the pitot tubes gave all sorts of fantastic speeds, like the P-47s that apparently exceeded 700 mph! Look up the Wikipedia entry for the Machmeter. It also shows that the speed of sound varies with temperature.
EdWoods4444 5 months ago
@Camerameister If memory serves me right Sqd. Ldr. Martindale managed 0.92 Mach in a Mk. XI Spitfire on 27th April 1944, a true air speed of about 606 mph. He also had control failure and I think his prop came off. Those were research dives investigating the sound barrier and I think the conclusion everyone had was that the prop is like trying to force a giant disc through the sound barrier. It also starts to lose efficiency around 450 mph.
EdWoods4444 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1MtnBoy " "FACTS" from the hip no books. the speed of sound ( Mach 1) in a gas is fixed at an absolute value of 343 meters per second."
"increase altitude or decrease density and mach 1 speed is reduced. "
But now you've said the speed of sound is fixed at an absolute value of 343 m/s BUT that it changes due to air density. So you have now agreed with Camerameister that it is variable. That's where you are going wrong: you don't understand what it is you are saying.
EdWoods4444 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1MtnBoy " "FACTS" from the hip no books. the speed of sound ( Mach 1) in a gas is fixed at an absolute value of 343 meters per second."
"increase altitude or decrease density and mach 1 speed is reduced. "
But now you've said the speed of sound is fixed at an absolute value of 343 m/s BUT that it changes due to air density. So you have now agreed with Camerameister that it is variable. That's where you are going wrong: you don't understand what it is you are saying.
EdWoods4444