Talk:Bell X-1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.See comments
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)