Talk:Bell X-1

X-1 or X-1 Series?

To cut to the chase, this article is a mess. I'd like to start working on it, but before I do, there needs to be some clarification -- what's the intent: does this article, Bell X-1 describe the entire X-1 series of aircraft, or simply the X-1 type (S/N's 46-062, 46-063 and 46-064)? As the X-1A, X-1B, X-1D and X-1E (063 rebuilt) are different than the original X-1, they deserve some sort of differentiation, either through separate articles or sections on this page. Mustang dvs 04:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that the third XS-1 is completely ignored. Mustang dvs 04:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I decided to follow the X-24 example, which covers both versions. (Although the argument could be made that the X-24 was a single aircraft, with multiple configurations, whereas the X-1 was a series of aircraft incorporating entirely separate variants.) Mustang dvs 17:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

the information lifted from NASA should be cross-checked with non-government sources. Kingturtle 18:42 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I highly doubt that all this information, including a number of straw-man arguments, came solely from a show on the History Channel. Documenting sources would help quite a bit. Mustang dvs 04:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Other Sound Barrier Claims

I've almost finished my contributions to a new article on George Welch. IMHO, he has one of the best challenges for first supersonic flight (supposedly 1 week before the X-1, also at Murdoc Field aka Edwards AFB). Should he be included here? My feeling is that if we are gonna include Guido Mutke we should also include him, but i'm reluctant to make such a controversial contribution to a major article which I haven't had a hand in shaping. -Lommer 06:44, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mutke's claim is nonsense. The 262's terminal velocity was less than the Spit's. (By the way, likely a typo, it's Muroc, N Murdoc, after the dry lake {(ult after a guy named Corum, or so I understand}). Trekphiler 23:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, it is Muroc (see Edwards Air Force Base for more). But anyways, IIRC, spitfire pilots had reported symptoms similar to supersonic flight (mostly mach tuck and jump) during steep dives, so I don't think that rules out Mutke's claim. Also you have to consider Terminal Velocity in a full power dive, not in a free dive. I'm not certain, but I suspect a 262's TV would be higher in that scenario. -User:Lommer | ^talk 21:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Does all that "information" need to be included in this article? None of it is referenced, most of it is rumor and some of it doesn't even make sense as it's currently written: "The mysterious 702 mph Me-163B by Dittmar flight is wrapped in mystery and has no Mach number associated with it." At the very least, it should be it's own section, somewhere later in the article than in the intro; it might even deserve it's own page. Mustang dvs 04:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

P-38 pilots reported much the same, & it wasn't supersonic, it was compressibility; see Caidin, Fork-Tailed Devil. As I understand TV, it's measured at full power; it reflects the max vel the airframe is capable of. (I stand to be corrected there.) Trekphiler 03:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Merge Request → Sound barrier

Since most of the supersonic disputes are covered (very similarly, I might add) in sound barrier, and really have no bearing on the X-1 history, I believe that they should be moved to/merged with that article. Mustang dvs 23:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Jack Woolum and Slick Goodlin

This article makes no mention of Jack Woolum or Slick Goodlin, who flew the X-1 long before Yeager got attached to the project. Willy Logan 15:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Not to disparage either man's flying skills, but Woolum only flew the plane as a glider, and Goodlin never got it up above Mach 0.8, when the plane was intended to research transonic and supersonic phenomena. Yeager was the one who did the important things with the plane, and so he's the one who gets the most information. Iceberg3k 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeager wouldn't have had the chance to fly the X-1, had it not been for Jack Woolams or "Slick" Goodlin. The fact that they weren't the pilots who gained notoriety from the X-1's most famous flight doesn't make them any less important to the history of the X-1. In fact, were it not for Woolams, the X-1 program would never have been moved to Muroc. Mustang dvs 23:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

XS = extra-sonic?

Trekphiler just added a bit that says "XS" originally stood for extra-sonic. I've never heard this before. Can anyone provide sources? -User:Lommer | ^talk 21:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

XS stood for "Experimental, Supersonic." Designating the goal they wanted to reach with it. Iceberg3k 14:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense. Thanks. -User:Lommer | ^talk 19:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Extra-Sonic would mean outside sound. Even for the military, that makes too little sense.

I've heard it said; I don't vouch for it. (My understanding was, it meant "past sonic", for which it makes some sense.) Trekphiler 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Image problem

at 20:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC), there are two images that are not showing up. GregCovey 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What is a stab?

--Gbleem 20:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It means 'stabilator', the horizontal tail section. Since supersonic flight alters the center of lift of the main wing, you need to adjust the trim of the tail in order to offset the nose-heavy condition that occurs-- more than elevator deflection alone will provide. You need to re-adjust the whole horizontal tail section, the 'stab', to do this.

Miles connection in History?

What happened to the mention of the Miles M-52. The influence it had on the X-1 might be controversial, but it is an interesting historical note to make surely? Maybe Bernard Biales can provide his reasoning for editing these facts out. Meio 18:20 GMT, 12 July 2006.

The straw-man argument in the article "Many believe..." needs to be substantiated with a reference or modified/deleted. The aircraft had similar missions and were designed using similar engineering resources -- of course they were going to look similar. Mustang dvs 04:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a TV doc claiming Miles' data was passed to Bell's team, including the all-flying tail, without which (the doc claims) X-1 would never have succeeded. Trekphiler 03:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Miles / Bell and the variable tail plane

A program on this subject recently aired on Discovery Wings (UK) stated that the variable tail plane was built onto the Bell X-1 - but originally fixed in place. IIRC It was only after initial flights, that Bell decided to try making it adjustable in flight. Can anyone expand on that? Regards, Lynbarn 16:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The M.52 tail was a relatively primitive affair compared to the Bell's post-flight redesign. 87.113.23.176 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This primitive primitive Miles pitch control, is the nowadays common full moveable tailplane, much more advanced as the X-1 tail plane. The Bell X-1 use the all moveable trimmable tailplane design used by the Messerschmitt Me 262. --HDP (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Date Contradiction or Time Machine?

Am I reading this right that the article says the X-1 was contracted in March 1946 and the first flight occurred in January 1946? Holy crap! The X-1 was a time machine!!! Pjbflynn 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Doubtless a misprint. Trekphiler 04:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Give me a lift

I deleted

"In all earlier claims, the sound barrier was supposedly breached by diving aircraft and thus making it impossible to determine if aerodynamic lift could be maintained at those speeds."

It's unclear what was meant; & "supposedly breached" is factually inaccurate (engineers knew the difference between compressibility & sonic speed, even if media nitwits didn't; cf claims for DH 108 & Geoffrey deHavilland); & I'm unaware of doubt "aerodynamic lift could be maintained" (more like, could airframes survive the stresses), but I claim no expertise. It needs a rewrite, in any case, if only to source who doubted lift capacity. Trekphiler 04:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

In the movie the "Right Stuff," observers on the ground during Yeager's first flight through the sound barrier are seen dejected after hearing the sonic boom and assuming that the X-1 had crashed. Is there any truth to this? Did the pliots and engineers not know that a faster-than-sound aircraft would produce a sonic boom? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaedglass (talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

If I remember right, Chuck TYeager has stated the ground crew did not hear the sonic boom because the X-1 was too far away. THe scene is dramatic licence, typical of fictionalized accounts, not just in Hollywood. Shakespeare made great use of the technique. - BillCJ 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Designed by miles engineering (sic)

If someone has a credible, verifiable source that proves that Miles Aircraft (I assume this is what the user meant) did the primary design work for the entire X-1, then by all means cite it. (Assuming that the edit was not vandalism, which is not entirely clear.) Almost all early US jet engines were British built, licence-bulit versions of British-designed engines, or developments of British designs. No one is trying to suppress that. In addition, the British gave us 3 invetions (angled deck, mirror landing system, and steam catapult), thaat made modern jet carrier aviation possible. (Then they invented the harrier, which didn't need any of these!) If there is legitimate proof that Miles played any role in the X-1's development, I don't see what that would need to be suppressed. I'm going to start watching the Wright Flyer page now, just to make sure this user doesn't claim they stole THAT from the British too! - BillCJ 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't stolen, it was shared freely. Since we Brits foolishly abandoned the Bullet-shaped thin-wing design in favour of a Delta (copying the Germans) we gave our now uneeded information (designs, sketches and even the fuselages of prototype M.51 and an M.52) to the Americans for free, with the expressed intention that any and all information be shared if the design successfully went super-sonic. Some design changes took place in the 'States: The tail was re-designed and the jet was replaced with a rocket and, ultimately, it went super-sonic. Bell was prepared to honour it's side of the agreement to share the data, but the USAF stepped in and claimed the project as a State Secret, and Bell was not allowed to give any information back to Britain.

It's a good example of engineers from both countries being bossed around by the government superiours, with no experience with the technology. In Britain, people with no aerospace knowledge abandoned the M.52 because they thought the Germans must have been right, and in the 'States, the government essentially forced Bell into stealing the earlier British work.

Miles shold DEFINATELY be credited. It's part of aviation hererige. 87.113.23.176 11:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Plus, while we're hovering around the subject, a Brit flew a plane in New Zealand before the Wright Flyer... He flew farther for longer and higher... but he crash-landed and the flight was not considered a success. The Brother's knew more of what there machine could get away with and didn't try to push it too far. 87.113.23.176 11:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense about the Miles M.52, long since dispatched as urban mythology. If you want to keep up this line of supposition, feed it it into the Miles M.52 page. New Zealander inventor Pearce may have flown, but it was a more of a trajectory than a flight. Control is the aspect that was missing. Anyone could launch a device but that is not flying. FWIW Bzuk 11:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC).

Urban mythology? Hell, read the wiki page for the M.52. The fact that it's such a similar design, based on the 50-cal browning, and it was designed first help to corroborate what I'm saying. I don't understand why you seem to find it so offensive to have the M.52 credited on this page, it's part of aviation history and it's yet another good example of trans-atlantic cooperation.

Also, while It may not have been controlled flight, it was still powered and heavier-than-air. I'm not trying to take anything away from the Wright's achievement at all, they were still the true farthers of aviation.87.112.23.117 09:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a well documented lineage for both the Bell X-1 and Miles M.52. I suggest you find some authoritative sources to corroborate your statements, otherwise, my comments stand. There is no scientific basis for Pearce's claim and I know his biographer who has never suggested that the hop into a bush was anything other than an abortive flight attempt. You could throw the Russian claims and Langley's steam contraption into the same category. FWIW Bzuk 12:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC).

Fair point. I'll dig up some refferences. Thanks for the brief debate though, you definately know your stuff... 87.113.9.63 19:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.aero-web.org/specs/bell/xs-1.htm

I'll find some more links later, or you can Google and Yahoo yourself... If I get more time, I'll put some more up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.23.191 (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The site you have provided [1] does not give a correlation to Miles engineering antecedents. The quote; "Many believe the X-1 was heavily based on the British designed Miles M.52 jet. The Miles M.52 was strangely cancelled by the British government months away from a test flight, and all technical data regarding it was transferred to Bell. Later tests show that the Miles M.52 would have broken the sound barrier if allowed to fly." is extremely doubtful in origin; it's only the author's opinion?! see the weasel words used. FWIW Bzuk 15:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC).

Also FWIW, I don't think the M.52 ref should be del entirely, if only for those (like me) who've heard the claim the flying tail enabled the XS-1 to go sonic & was owed to the M.52, but know no more about either. (I'd never heard of the M.52 before that.) My $0.02. Trekphiler (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read the article on the M.52, the claim is made there at least more substantially. Whether the British gave away the secret of the "flying tail" or it was "stolen?!" can be introduced into the X-1 article but the entry does need to be submitted with proper authentication and attribution. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC).

It needs to be mentioned that the all-moving tailplane was a BRITISH design, first used on a Miles Falcon in 1943. This must be added to the article, as it just is not fair to let the British engineers go without due credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjake2002 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Eric "Winkle" Brown says in his book 'Wings on my sleeves' that he flew the first all moving one fitted to a subsonic plane (Spitfire I think), well before it was used on the X-1, as part of the research on the M.52. I'll try and dig up the reference next weekend. The X-1 was the first to fly it supersonically (obviously), but the idea seems to have been used first in the UK. Eric Brown is pretty reputable. I don't think there's any secret about why the M.52 was cancelled- the British government was flat broke after WWII. I'm also sure that there wasn't any particular subterfuge involved on the part of the Americans, just the normal bloody-minded bureaucratic screw-up.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am greatly mistaken, the X-1 did not use an "all-moving tailplane", but a variable-incidence tailplane with elevators. (It's possible this was in one of Yeager's books, but I'm not certain.) I also seem to recall that this type of tailplane had been developed in the 1930s, tho I don't remember by whom. Since I don't have reliable sources to cite this, I'm not adding it to the article as yet. It doesn't matter to me who invented what when, just that if it is in the article, it be cited correctly from reliable sources, which blogs are decidedly not. - BillCJ (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

IRC they locked out the elevators and used a screw jack to adjust the angle of incidence of the tailplane. The stuff about the M.52 design using this type of tail is pretty well established (e.g. [2]) specifically to avoid the control issues due to the movement of the shockwave in transonic flight, and it was actually flown at ~Mach 0.86. There's also clear evidence that there was technology transfer. Of course the X-1 project could have known about it before the transfer occurred, but there's no mention of it before that point in any documentation that I'm aware of prior to the cancellation of the M.52; and at some point it was fitted to the X-1, whereas the M.52 had it all along.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The UK term for such as tailplane is an 'all-flying tail', because the whole tail surface moves pivoting about a central point roughly at the mid-chord position, as opposed to just the elevators which are hinged to a fixed point, i.e, the tailplane, and IIRC the US term is 'stabilator'. The English Electric P.1 had one from the start back in 1947. This type of tail was also used in the later F-86G in place of the earlier tailplane/elevator-type tail. WolfKeeper is correct in that the initial Bell X-1 used the tailplane trim to control the aircraft in pitch while transonic, however the all-flying tail later became just about standard on all transonic and supersonic designs.

design

Should the design section include that whole information exchange fiasco between the UK and the US? - - - BigglesPiP ^{- Talk | Contribs -} 02:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Data compressibility

While I claim no expertise in aerodynamics, the connection between compressibility problems, the variable-incidence tailplane, & sonic flight strikes me a bit thin. Recovery in compressibility conditions, yes, but given the aircraft was capable of level sonic (or near-sonic) flight, keeping level, or dive recovery, wasn't a problem (as it was in the P-38, for instance). Am i missing something? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 01:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)