60 years ago today, Chuck Yeager became the first human to break the Mach 1 "sound barrier".
When I was a kid, I remember watching old TV shows and movies about how it was impossible to go faster than sound, how’d you’d go back in time or some such nonsense. I thought it was fun then (and silly), but it wasn’t until later that I heard that a lot of people really thought it was impossible to go faster than sound. But it wasn’t a physical barrier (like the speed of light), it was an engineering one. Bullets, whips, and meteors all go faster than sound, so we knew it could be done.
And so we did it.
So I tip my propeller beanie to not just General Yeager, but also to the team of engineers who made it possible.
A tip o’ the beanie to Fark, too. Oh, as usual: childish, NSFW comments in that link. Duh. It’s Fark.
October 14th, 2007 at 10:40 am
piloting an aircraft… in horizontal powered flight.
besides, though unmanned, rockets during WW2 flew even faster than 2 times the speed of sound by design.
Chuck is one of my heroes anyway, no doubt.
Philip
October 14th, 2007 at 10:42 am
I always wonder if one day humanity will be looking back on this period with a similar perspective: “I remember when people thought you could never go faster than the speed of light. They even had some evidence it might be possible: theories about tachyons, knowledge of Cerenkov radiation. They knew it was possible to travel at the speed if you simply started out that way, but they didn’t think we’d ever be able to solve this problem. Of course, back then, they hadn’t yet formulated (some new theory, technology, etc.)…”
October 14th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Sometimes, I put myself in Chuck’s seat, and I wonder if I would have had the stones to go blindly into that sort of unknown. I think I’d need a LOT of convincing.
October 14th, 2007 at 11:08 am
I remember watching old TV shows and movies about how it was impossible to go faster than sound, how’d you’d go back in time or some such nonsense
Though I fully respect the general consensus that the speed of light is the “speed limit of the universe” I hope that in maybe 500 years (give or take a bunch) we’ll be shaking our heads at that, too.
October 14th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Despite him being an ok guy (by most accounts anyway) it is a little sad that I know he was first to break Mach 1, but have no idea who actually made that possible. He certainly had nothing to do with producting the tech - you don’t put anyone important in experemental aircraft. You put someone who is willing to take a rather big one for the team and endure the risk of beta-testing something where crash really does mean CRASH. That’s a noble cause I suppose, but doesn’t take extreme skill but rather a healthy dollop of balls hanging and being expendable to the project if things go bad. Someone has to do it and it’s good that he did, but it depresses me that the people who poured their soul into this achivement rather then putting a much different part on the line for it get so little credit.
October 14th, 2007 at 11:54 am
LarrySDonald:
Actually, you’re way off. Life doesn’t always follow what would be an assumed path. Take a closer look at aviation history. In many cases, new designs and concepts of flight were tested by the designers themselves. Test pilots were and are highly skilled people, and in many cases were directly involved with flying the planes and risking their own lives. Very few were not pilots.
October 14th, 2007 at 11:54 am
He certainly had nothing to do with producting the tech - you don’t put anyone important in experemental aircraft.
Actually, you’re going to want one of your best and brightest in an experimental aircraft. The pilot needs to decide whether to cut off the test because the likelihood of a crash is too high (saving both lives and hardware), continue the test with several unknowns and danger signs so that the needed data can be gathered, and adapt quickly to new hardware and new conditions.
A test pilot is a field scientist. The engineers did remarkable work planning and creating the aircraft for which they deserve greater recognition. But it’s also important to recognize that Yeager ran the experiment that gathered the real world data.
October 14th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
What I’d like to know, and it doesn’t seem to be in my accounts of Yeager’s flight, is who invented the flying tail that made FTS flight possible? Was it one person or a team?
The Bell X1 was originally designed with a ‘normal’ horizontal stab, with the aft part of the stab hinged as elevators. Those didn’t work, right near the speed of sound, and someone(s) finally thought ‘why not hinge the whole stabilizer (like a boat rudder)? They did, and the plane went through the sound barrier without the controls ‘locking up’ as they had done before. All supersonic planes that have horizontal stabs have used this since. But who thought of it? THAT person is my hero.
PS - the X1 was designed around the US 50-cal bullet. It was known to be exceptionally stable in supersonic flight, so they just used that general shape for the aircraft. No big breakthrough there. And the rocket engine on it was also no new thing. So the flying tail, and Yeager’s readiness to fly it after the civilian test pilot demanded too much money, are the real breakthroughs that day. BA, you should remind people that he flew with a bruised or broken rib, sustained the night before in a fall from a horse being joy-ridden. He did not tell anyone about it, of course.
PPS - The flying tail was why the flight was immediately classified as secret, and no announcement was made for some years, postponing Yeager’s publicity. Air Force figured they had discovered something special, and classified it.
October 14th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Infophile said:
“…knowledge of Cerenkov radiation.”
Cerenkov radiation isn’t really a violation of the light-speed limit. Cerenkov radiation involves exceeding the local regional average rate at which photon radiation is propagated. The speed known as “c” remains an unbreached asymptotic limit.
October 14th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
I still remember watching the Martin Sheen narrated PBS program Spaceflight on video unti the tape gave out, back in the eighties, when I was a kid. They had an episode on the test pilots at Edwards AFB… awesome that was.
It is about time that they release that show on DVD… but alas, I guess, that will never happen.
You got a stick of Beaman’s?
October 14th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
We sure appreciate all your comments.
Chip and Mr. Koenig are correct.
Robinki is incorrect on one point: The Bell X-1 WAS ORIGINALLY designed with the flying tail.
The flying tail was put on for stability in flight - NOT to help break the sound barrier - they had no idea.
It was Jack Ridley, part of the two man team (Chuck Yeager being the other man) to whom General Chuck Yeager ALWAYS gives credit, who suggested using the manual manipulation of the positioning of this flying tail. It was Chuck Yeager who understood and implemented this suggestion successfully.
Most people thought Chuck Yeager would blow apart as he hit the sound barrier. Some snidely said that’s why Col Boyd picked the most junior of his test pilots.
However, Col Boyd knew: Chuck Yeager understood planes mechanically - he’d been a maintenance officer and, as a kid, had worked with his Dad drilling gas wells - AND he practiced flying more than the other guys. Col Boyd said that Chuck Yeager was the most instinctive pilot (instinct born of lots and lots of practice and thought) he knew and the best test pilot.
During WWII, when they had leave, they’d go to London to get drunk and party. General Yeager would fly and practice his hand-eye coordination.
Larry Bell was the fellow who owned the company and oversaw the design of the Bell X-1.
So there are some of the fellows that helped Chuck Yeager get above MACH 1. And Gen Yeager ALWAYS gives them credit - whether interviewers, articles, or tv shows use the information is beyond his control.
www.chuckyeager.com
October 14th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I just watched a ST:TNG episode last night where Wesley performs a Yeager loop. This show is chock full of these cool references. Oh and so is BABlog.
October 14th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Ah yes I remember it well. A long time ago.
October 14th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
My greatest achievement in life is realising the extent of my own ignorance, but isn’t the speed of sound entirely dependant on the medium it’s travelling through? Yeager broke a sound barrier but not the speed of sound in all circumstances. I don’t mean to demean the achievement but it’s about speed rather than about an absolute limit.
On a slightly related topic is the speed of light variable, depending on the medium it’s travelling through? It’s maximum speed is fine but I’ve read that, through sodium, at -272 deg C it can be as slow as 60 km/hr. Can this be true? I hope it is ‘cos if so I’ve broken light speed today on my bike!
(pedals, not pistons!)
October 14th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
The all-moving tail originally came from the British Miles M.52 jet, which was cancelled before it could fly and all the experimental data shared with Bell before the X-1 was designed.
October 14th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
The announcement delay due to secrecy of the flying tail was 7 months, not years.
October 14th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Mc Atilla: The intrinsic speed of light is always c, when travelling through a medium, the interaction of photons with matter delay it. Photons bounce from atom to atom at c, but they are absorbed by electrons which sit in a higher energy state for a non-zero length of time, before dropping back and releasing another photon.
If I am full of crap, I’m sure somebody will let me know …
By the way, the speed of sound limit and the speed of light limit are so different that it makes little sense to compare them. As Phil said, breaking the former is an engineering problem, breaking the latter would require a fundamental change to our understanding of the universe. It’s nice to dream about, but it’s not going to happen. Luckily, we already live in a paradise, in a galaxy that is not altogether friendly to life.
October 14th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Once again poor George Welch gets left out. He almost flew supersonic at least twice at Muroc before Yeager made his flight - the second as the Yeager flight was taking off. Welch was flight testing the XF-86 (which also had the flying tail) and went supresonic during dive testing. That’s why the Yeager record is stipulated to be “in level flight” (even though Yeager also began with a shallow dive). The main reason Welch was not mentioned was that the Air Force wanted to keep the F-86’s capability secret.
Welch is a fascinating character. He was one of only a handfull of pilots who got into the air during the Pearl Harbor attack (he’s shown in the movie “Tora, Tora, Tora”), and probably became an ace that day, but only had confirmation for four planes shot down. He went on to successful combat experience flying P-39’s and 38’s, became a test pilot after the war, and died while testing the XF-100.
Chuck Yeager is a legend (and deservedly so), but there were a lot of other guys with “the right stuff”, like Welch, Marion Carl, Joe Walker and Scott Crossfield - it’s just too bad they don’t get remembered too.
October 14th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Oh, and Aramael - the speed of light does vary depending on the medium. It is only C in a vacuum.
October 14th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Oops - In my earlier comment, “He almost flew supersonic…” should not have the word “almost”
October 14th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Mc Atilla, yes you are correct, the speed of sound through an iron bar is faster than through air, I cannot think of many people who would try it though. And yes, you can cycle faster than speed of light but only if you do it on a road and the photons have to do it through a Bose-Einstein condensate. Wouldn’t advise trying to follow the photons;)
October 14th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Was it Yeager and associates who taunted the first Astronauts something silly ? “Anyone can sit in a rocket that fires itself into orbit” ? Gotta have that friendly banter going I guess
DJ Barney
October 14th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Yojimboken: yes, but do the photons themselves? Or is it the interaction with the medium that makes the propagation slower?
Anybody reading this article should really do themselves a favour and watch The Right Stuff. I have no idea how accurate it is, but it’s hugely entertaining.
October 14th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
This is probably besides the point, but I noticed the bit about the Bell X-1’s designed based on a 50 cal. bullet. Interesting enough, there are reports that indicate the Canadian-built Avro Arrow, which eventually nailed mach 2 (1,307 mph, 2,104 km/h) at 50,000 ft (15,000 m), was influenced by a familiar shape. They realized the old glass Coke bottles seemed to be aerodynamic enough to handle a certain speed. Before that, there were stability issues.
It’s funny how little innovations go a long way.
Hats off to Chuck, absolutely.
October 14th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Mark Martin:
>Cerenkov radiation isn’t really a violation of the light-speed limit. Cerenkov radiation involves exceeding the local regional average rate at which photon radiation is propagated. The speed known as “c†remains an unbreached asymptotic limit.
Actually, currently THERE IS at least one theoretical way to have true >c speeds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect There might be a possibility to create a “less dense” vacuum which allows light to propagate faster.
Testing if it’s true is not currently possible. But I hope that one day someone will discover a way to create FTL engines based on this effect
October 14th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
A lot of people who remember the film `Sound Barrier’ think it was the British who broke the sound barrier first. Not true, of course, though, for its day, it was very convincing, including the bit, IIRC, about the Spitfire getting pretty near the speed of sound in a dive. There was some seriously hairy physics going on at the propeller tips.
October 14th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
[…] and Bad Astronomy each provide tributes to Yeager on this […]
October 14th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Aramael - Ah! I see what you’re saying, and I believe you’re right. Photons, being massless, must propogate at C. On the other hand, I’m a long way from a physicist
Keith Harwood - I remember that film. Just “reverse the controls…” I think it is highly likely that Yeager (or Welch) was not the first to go supersonic - just the first to be confirmed as doing so by accurate measurement. German fliers in the Me 163 and Me 262 probably did it, as well as a few piston driven planes - the P-38, P-47 late models, Do-335 and other piston fighters were certainly capable of the raw power required. The problem was doing it and surviving, a much trickier proposition. I suspect the sound barrier was broken many times by pilots who did not live to tell the tale.
October 14th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
A couple of points on aerodynamics, which I like almost as much as astronomy:
Yojimboken- George “Wheaties” Welch did almost get supersonic, but almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. He was in a dive, not in true controlled flight. A lot of pilots in WW II ran into what was later recognised as compressibility effects, especially in late model Spitfires and P-38 Lightnings. BTW, early F-86 models didn’t have the all-moving tail- that came along on the F-86E if I recall correctly. If you really want to get into the nuts and bolts, read “Supersonic Flight” by Richard P. Hallion- he describes in massive detail the Bell XS-1 and Douglas D-558-2 Skyrocket projects. Most of “The Right Stuff” is reasonably accurate, at least in the book. The movie takes a lot of license. Also- Welch survived Pearl Harbor and was the pilot killed in testing the F-86’s big brother, the F-100. That’s how inertia coupling was discovered, and why jet fighters have big single or double tails, incidentally.
Jest- the deal with the Arrow had nothing to do with coke bottles originally- it’s called Whitcomb’s (he also invented winglets, like on passenger planes) area rule. Aerodynamic drag is reduced if the cross-sectional area of the plane increases and decreases smoothly according to a particular function. The fuselage pinches in where the wings attach so as to keep the total area increasing smoothly. Modern jets do the same thing, but in a more subtle fashion. Wings and fuselages are generally blended together so the area ruling is not as blatantly obvious. Check out a picture of a Convair F-102A, which predated the Arrow (which I LOVE but the fools tried to build an airframe, an engine and a fire control system all from scratch, guaranteeing MASSIVE cost overruns).
OK, so I’m a airplane geek, too.
October 15th, 2007 at 8:05 am
no, I was referring to later on, not originally
It’d be kinda silly to say “hey let’s build a fighter jet. Oh, I know, let’s shape it like a coke bottle!” hehe. I’m certain a lot of math and theory went into it long before they started looking around for further inspiration.
Of course, sometimes you have to look back to look forward (like NASA’s next-gen manned probes, to replace the shuttle fleet).
October 15th, 2007 at 8:38 am
It’s also ten years today since the Andy Green became the first person to break the sound barrier on the ground. Fifty years and one day after Yeager’s flight.
Unlike the flying record, where a human broke the sound barrier only about 6 years after the V2, it took 49 years from the first ground vehicle breaking the sound barrier to the first human doing so.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Jim Atkins - I checked myself, and you’re right about the F-86E being the first to have the all-flying tail. I’m not sure I agree that diving the Sabre was not true controlled flight, though. The sources I have say that it was fully controlable except for a slight tendency to nose up as it went supersonic. The big problem was that the power-boosted elevators stressed the airframe, in particular the elevator trailing edge, when pulling out of a supersonic dive, and the controls felt “funny”.
As for Welch, sonic booms were reported on both occasions, and the same plane was later confirmed at speeds over Mach 1, so it seems pretty clear that Wheaties did better than “almost”.
In any case, my point was not to usurp Yeager, but just to point out that there are some other guys who ought not be forgotten.
From one airplane geek to another - salute!
October 16th, 2007 at 9:56 am
One of the true ‘coolness’ factors of the internet is when someone related to a post shows up, assuming this isn’t an impostor (I don’t see a mention of a ‘Virginia Yeager’ The General’s Bio, though his children’s names aren’t given):
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/10/14/yeager-meister/#comment-135613
October 16th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Congrats, Yeager!
October 18th, 2007 at 9:50 am
I’m in awe of The BA’s ability to still enjoy all the various sci-fi franchises he’s into even though many of them feature faster-than-light travel. I’m not sure I’d be able to enjoy a single story that depended on a concept I’d written off as impossible, and watching multiple seasons of multiple shows would probably make my frakkin’ head explode.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Yeager making new records:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlsWD1-fmIk
Yeager & Boyd:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ9_Y3oGihU
May 30th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
For more go to
www.chuckyeager.com
Thanks