Home » This Commercial Plane Went Supersonic Almost A Decade Before The Concorde And It Wasn’t Even Built To Do It

This Commercial Plane Went Supersonic Almost A Decade Before The Concorde And It Wasn’t Even Built To Do It

Supersonic Airliner Ts
ADVERTISEMENT

For years, travelers with enough money and not enough time could connect two points on the globe together quickly by hitching a ride in a Concorde. There was also the short-lived Tupolev Tu-144, but for a glorious period between the mid-1970s and the early 2000s, supersonic jet travel was a reality. Yet, neither of those planes were the first airliners to break the sound barrier. That goes to a Douglas DC-8, a plane that wasn’t built for supersonic flight. Yet, test pilots took the DC-8 on a flight they bet Boeing would never try with a 707.

This story comes to us thanks to a fun post on X from Andrew King and a post from the National Air And Space Museum. A large part of commercial aircraft manufacturing is marketing. If you’re Boeing or Airbus you want to give the airlines a reason to choose your aircraft over the other guy’s. That might seem a bit difficult in this era when it seems only avgeeks can tell the difference between an Airbus A320neo and a Boeing 737 MAX, but the differences are there.

Vidframe Min Top
Vidframe Min Bottom

In the modern day, we’ve seen aircraft manufacturers like Bombardier try to undercut the competition on price with the C-Series. Meanwhile, Boeing tried, and failed badly, to market the 737 MAX as an aircraft that existing 737 NG pilots could fly without much additional training. Sometimes you might also see a new airliner do a steep climb during an air show.

Things were a bit wilder in decades past when test pilots got a bit nutty in their missions to show that their company’s aircraft was built better than the rest.

5aedc13c 3af2 11e5 917e 8590c54c
Boeing

Perhaps one of the most famous instances of this involved Alvin Melvin “Tex” Johnston, then a test pilot with Boeing. In 1955, he was tasked with flying a Boeing 367-80, the engineering prototype that would lead to the 707, over a crowd. Instead, Tex performed not one, but two barrel rolls.

ADVERTISEMENT

This unsanctioned stunt remains a famous moment in aviation history and when Boeing company brass asked what in the world he was doing, Tex said he was just “selling planes. It wasn’t even a decade later when test pilots over at Douglas pulled off a daring stunt of their own.

One-Upping The Competition

Dc 8 Takeoff
Boeing

The world of aviation went through a revolution after World War II. Prop-driven aircraft were quickly becoming old news and jet power was seen as the future.

The de Havilland Comet helped usher in the onset of commercial jet travel when it took its first flight in 1949 before going into service in 1952 with the British Overseas Airways Corporation. America wasn’t too far behind. Boeing began the development of what would become the 707 back in 1949 and the aforementioned Dash 80 made its first flight in 1954.

Ihatewebps
BAE Systems

At the time, Douglas Aircraft was a dominant force with its DC piston-engine aircraft. Travelers in the 1930s might have found themselves in a DC-2 while Douglas kept its piston-engine airliner production going into the late 1950s with the DC-6 and DC-7. The DC-3 and its C-47 Skytrain variant were so influential and so rugged that large numbers of these aircraft survive and fly today despite being in the ballpark of 80 years old or older.

Douglas came a little late into the era of first-generation jet airliners. As a retrospective by AirlineRatings points out, Douglas knew the future was in jet transport, but Donald Douglas didn’t believe that the jet engines of the early 1950s were as reliable or as thrifty as they needed to be. Worse was the fact that airlines were still happy to put down hard cash for piston airliners and they might have needed time before they were willing to plunk down money on jets.

ADVERTISEMENT
Bi23426
Boeing

Douglas was such a market leader in piston aircraft that it put out an advertisement claiming twice as many people fly in Douglas planes than all other manufacturers combined.

Winds of change came in 1952 when the United States Air Force launched a bid to replace its KC-97 piston-driven tankers. See, military jets like the Boeing B-47 and the Boeing B-52 were taking to the skies in the Cold War and while these bombers were great, the USAF wasn’t fond of refueling them because the existing tankers flew 200 mph slower. That practically made the bombers sitting ducks. The military wanted heavy tankers that could fly as fast as the aircraft they would be refueling.

Douglas was not about to be left behind and launched its own jet transport program in June of that year. This was an ambitious project for Douglas. As I said before, Douglas Aircraft was known best for its piston aircraft and jet development was still a pretty new thing over there. Meanwhile, the USAF wanted new tankers to feed the Boeing jets that were already flying.

655789main Ed12 0143 09 Full Ful
NASA

As Airways Magazine writes, Chief Project Engineer Ivor Shogrun took his team through hundreds of designs, including evaluations of the Comet design and even a Delta wing. Ultimately, they landed on building an aircraft with swept wings and jet engines mounted under the wings and housed in pods. The successor to the DC-7 was underway.

By the end of 1954, Douglas was still behind Boeing. The company spent $3 million and 250,000 hours developing the DC-8 and had a mock-up of the aircraft plus a proposal for the USAF. Meanwhile, Boeing’s Dash 80 was an already flying proposal. Reportedly, Douglas wasn’t too worried about this because historically, the government awarded contracts to more than just one manufacturer.

ADVERTISEMENT
Bi23398
Boeing

Things worked out differently here as in early 1955, the government ordered 21 Boeing KC-135s before evaluations were complete and before Douglas could even catch up. Donald Douglas went to Washington to beg for a chance, but the decision was made. Reportedly, this caused Douglas to change gears. It thought if Boeing was going to be tied up into this tanker business and its other competitors were still messing about with piston-engine aircraft, at least it could come out in front of this new age of jet-powered passenger travel. Thus, the DC-8 was greenlit as an airliner project.

Douglas would learn that Boeing was making a commercial airliner, too, but Douglas making a jet airliner was still a winning decision. Pan Am ordered 45 first-generation passenger jets and 25 of them were DC-8s. United Airlines also signed up for 30 DC-8s for $175 million, reportedly the biggest commercial airliner order at the time. Douglas was so good at scooping up orders that Boeing announced that it was widening the 707 fuselage by 10 inches so that it would be as spacious as the DC-8 was promising to be.

Douglaslines

I’ll let Boeing continue from here:

The DC-8 was the first Douglas jet-powered transport. It entered service simultaneously with United Airlines and Delta Air Lines on Sept. 18, 1959. Powered by four jet turbine engines, the DC-8 was capable of speeds of more than 600 mph. Throughout its 14-year-long production run, the DC-8 went through seven major variants, for a total of 556 aircraft. The basic domestic version, the DC-8 Series 10, had increased fuel capacity for intercontinental flights, and the Series 30 and 40 were the first to use the 17,500-pound-thrust turbojet engines.

The DC-8 Series 50 were the first DC-8s powered by new, more efficient turbofan jet engines with 18,000 pounds thrust and longer range. The Series 50 were also the first to be offered customers in the convertible passenger-freight version or the windowless all-freight version. The DC-8 Series 60 extended the length of the fuselage. Nearly 37 feet longer than the original model, in an all-economy passenger configuration, the DC-8-61 could carry 260 people; its convertible-freighter configuration had a cargo volume of 12,535 cubic feet. The DC-8-62, for extra-long routes, had a fuselage stretched another 6 feet 8 inches and 3-foot wingtip extensions.

All design improvements of the DC-8-61 and -62 were incorporated in the DC-8-63. The -63 could fly more than 4,500 miles nonstop, carrying 259 passengers because of its extended fuselage; aerodynamic improvements to nacelles, pylons and flaps; and increased wingspan and fuel capacity. In 1995, more than 300 DC-8s remained in service, making more than 340 scheduled flights a day. Its versatility allowed it to be fitted with high-bypass turbofan engines by another company and called the Series 70.

Going Supersonic

Flyingpair
Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum

While Douglas developed the DC-8 quickly, it never fully caught up to the Boeing 707. The Boeing took to the skies five months sooner than the Douglas. Airlines were still sending orders to Douglas, but the manufacturer wanted to do something different to sell its plane.

ADVERTISEMENT

Back during the testing phases, Douglas test pilots would fly the DC-8 to its maximum speed. William Magruder was one of those test pilots and he was the co-pilot in the DC-8’s maiden flight back in 1958. Magruder came to Douglas after a career in the military flying such greats like the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, Douglas C-124 Globemaster II, Martin B-57 Canberra, and North American F-86 Sabre. He also flew with the legends like Chuck Yeager and Tex Johnston.

Magruder’s idea to sell the DC-8 was to beat Boeing at its own game. Tex grabbed headlines with his Dash 80 barrel rolls. Magruder? He wanted to break the sound barrier with the DC-8. Keep in mind that this was 1961, about eight years before the Concorde would even take its first flight. The DC-8’s cruising speed was 0.82 Mach and the maximum design Mach number was 0.95. It was a fast aircraft, but it wasn’t built for supersonic flight.

However, Magruder figured that taking a DC-8 past the sound barrier would prove that Douglas built an incredibly sturdy aircraft. At the same time, he figured Boeing wouldn’t try to follow up the stunt because who wants to take second place?

Bi23378
Boeing

On August 21, 1961, Magruder joined copilot Paul Patten, flight engineer Joseph Tomich, and flight test engineer Richard H. Edwards aboard Douglas DC-8-43 N9604Z. It was the 130th DC-8 built and was powered by a quartet of Rolls-Royce Conway 509 turbofans making 17,500 pounds of thrust each. The Series 40 DC-8s were a big deal as they were the first turbofan jet airliners, promising a future of better fuel economy, less black smoke, and a quieter ride.

This aircraft wasn’t a test plane, but already painted and ready to fly for Douglas customer Canadian Pacific Air Lines. After the daring test, the Empress of Montreal aircraft was set to go into regular service. While this plane was new, it was already damaged. Flight test engineer Richard H. Edwards reported that someone damaged the aircraft’s leading edge slats on the wings the night before, rendering them non-functional. Edwards then banged the aircraft’s flaps on a workstand during the preflight check, rendering those inoperable, too.

ADVERTISEMENT

Normally, this would be a problem because these aerodynamic devices generate extra lift and allow the aircraft to handle better at slow speeds. The DC-8 is also designed to take off with its flaps down, locking out the rudder if you try to do so with the flaps up. Yet the pilots carried on, determining that aside from the takeoff roll when all four engines would need to work to maintain control, the damage was irrelevant. After all, they were trying to set a speed record, not fly slow.

As for the planning, Edwards spoke about that to the Smithsonian Magazine:

They had to determine the pushover load factor, the dive angle, to be sure they got to Mach 1.01 at a rather high altitude, so the airspeed wouldn’t be that high up there. [The speed of sound at altitude] is not 700 miles per hour: it’s a lot less. The aerodynamics department, I think under Roger Shaufele, prepared a set of charts. The Mach number itself isn’t used in a dive as a target because it’s much more accurate to use airspeed. So every thousand feet I would read off to Bill the airspeed [he needed] at the next altitude. As we were coming down, I was talking almost all the time because at a descent rate of 500 feet per second, every two seconds we were 1,000 feet lower. Looking out the window—which I stopped doing—it looked like it was straight down.

We took off at Long Beach and flew to Edwards. We only had fuel for a half-hour flight once we got there, because we wanted to be light, to climb.

Joining the DC-8 crew on the record flight was a North American F-100F Super Sabre with a camera and a Lock­heed F-104 Star­fighter chase plane flown by Chuck Yeager. Edwards then continued about the flight itself:

We took it up to 10 miles up, 52,000 feet—that’s a record—and put it in a half-a-G pushover. Bill maintained about 50 pounds of push. He didn’t trim it for the dive so that it would want to pull out by itself. In the dive, at about 45,000 feet, it went to Mach 1.01 for maybe 16 seconds, then he recovered.

But the recovery was a little scary. When he pulled back, the elevator was ineffective; it didn’t do anything, so he said, “Well, I’ll use the stabilizer,” and the stabilizer wouldn’t run. It stalled, because of the load. What he did, because he was smart, is something that no other pilot would do: He pushed over into the dive more, which relieved the load on the stabilizer. He was able to run the [stabilizer] motor, with the relieved load, and he recovered at about 35,000 feet. That’s an unofficial supersonic record, payload record, and of course an altitude record for a commercial transport. I think it took about 10 years for the SSTs to beat that.

To add some context to Edwards’ words, the crew leveled off at 52,090 feet, which had been higher than any commercial airliner had flown at that point. In the story by the Smithsonian Magazine, Edwards recounted how they had flown the DC-8 so high that the sky above them was black. Sure, the pilots commanding high-flying military hardware have seen that before, but we’re talking about a DC-8 here.

The reason Magruder had to recover from the dive by diving harder had to do with how the control surfaces worked. The crew reported buffeting around 0.96 Mach. This kind of buffeting has the potential to tear apart an aircraft if it isn’t durable enough. Past that speed, the buffeting stopped, but the control surfaces became ineffective.

ADVERTISEMENT
1367906761
Photo: Juergen Lutz / Source: PlanePictures.Net

The ailerons turned up about five degrees at around 0.97 Mach and when it was time to recover from the stunt, the elevator and stabilator couldn’t overcome the high speeds, either. But that makes sense. Again, the aircraft wasn’t really designed for this.

The DC-8 hit Mach 1.012 at 41,088 feet, or 660.6 mph for that given altitude. Now, that sounds like a lot of altitude to pull out of the dive. However, they were flying so fast that Magruder had about a minute to pull out of the dive before the aircraft either impacted the desert or tore itself apart.

Magruder’s fix for the non-responsive controls was unconventional. He pushed the yoke further forward, steepening the dive. This had the effect of lowering the load enough on the horizontal tailplanes for their motors to run, finally allowing the aircraft to pull out of the dive with about 35,000 feet to spare.

1467498311
Photo: Peter Scharkowski / Source: PlanePictures.Net

In the end, the team did it. They were the first to take a commercial airliner to supersonic speed, and achieved the feat a full year before France and England had even signed their treaty to jointly develop what became the world’s first supersonic transport, the Concorde. Along the way, they also managed to set an altitude record and a payload record. Magruder was also right that Boeing either didn’t have the cojones to give it a try or didn’t want to be second. I suppose in the long run Boeing is still victorious since it’s still officially around while Douglas technically is not.

As for the plane? Well, its story has a sad ending. N9604Z went on to fly with Canadian Pacific Air Lines registered as CF-CPG for nearly two decades. The airline sold it for scrap in 1980 and the aircraft lived its final days out in Florida in 1981.

ADVERTISEMENT

Today, this story is a reminder of some of the wilder days of advertising. It wasn’t enough to just market a product. Some people and some companies wanted to make those products do things they were never meant to do. A number of companies are all touting a new supersonic future. Regardless of what happens, none of them will be as cool as the time some guys took a DC-8 supersonic.

 

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on reddit
Reddit
Subscribe
Notify of
44 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Guillaume Maurice
Guillaume Maurice
24 days ago

Great Article.

Now, just to brag, the Concorde was going over mach 2 ( or twice the speed of sound ) on commercial flights… when it flew.

While the DC-8 was the first supersonic airliner, it’s not the fastest airliner.

Sorry Frog (& Rossbeef) Braggin’, I know the way out.

Dodsworth
Dodsworth
24 days ago

Wow! That was exciting.

Inthemikelane
Inthemikelane
24 days ago

Great article! Love reading this kind of stories. Been flying pretty much my whole life (parents in different states, then as an adult, flying once a week for work), and have been a passenger on several that were mentioned.

I knew Douglas made a hell of plane, but wasn’t aware of this competition for records. It makes sense from a selling standpoint, but to do the test flight took some serious courage. Thanks Mercedes, keep it coming.

Black Peter
Black Peter
25 days ago

That was a great story..

Rippstik
Rippstik
25 days ago

Most aircraft can go supersonic, at least once…

Freelivin2713
Freelivin2713
25 days ago

The Air and Space Museum?
There’s really nothing there…

SpyderWeber
SpyderWeber
25 days ago
Reply to  Freelivin2713

Reading this in Mitch Hedberg’s voice, thank you

Freelivin2713
Freelivin2713
25 days ago
Reply to  SpyderWeber

Yup…I love this one:
“An escalator can never break: it can only become stairs. You should never see an Escalator Temporarily Out Of Order sign, just Escalator Temporarily Stairs. Sorry for the convenience.”

Last edited 25 days ago by Freelivin2713
Black Peter
Black Peter
25 days ago

Was hoping for Loony Tunes, got Loony Tunes.. Thanks!

Cars? I've owned a few
Cars? I've owned a few
24 days ago

“Thank goodness this thing has air brakes.”

Harmon20
Harmon20
25 days ago

Nice. I knew bout Tex’s barrel rolls, but I didn’t know this story. That’s worth some space in the permanent memory banks.

A bit more impressive, I think. A properly executed barrel roll keeps the airframe well within design parameters. This trick most definitely does not.

Rusty S Trusty
Rusty S Trusty
25 days ago

The first commercial jet to go supersonic and they just scrapped it? WTF.

Harmon20
Harmon20
25 days ago
Reply to  Rusty S Trusty

ikr That was my first thought as well.

Loren
Loren
25 days ago

Boeing might have chosen to not match the trick because they didn’t want to risk being in the news for having an airliner break up in the sky, which from what I know is what would happen and makes the whole story kinda fishy. Barrel rolls do not have to be particularly stressful on the airframe.

I was on a late-night 737 flight with only six or seven passengers and presumably a light fuel load for a short end-of-the-day trip. The pilot gave it full thrust to altitude, he must have been having fun and I was impressed-as-hell and reminded that a common airliner really is a high performance machine.

Guillaume Maurice
Guillaume Maurice
24 days ago
Reply to  Loren

Barrel rolls are massively stresfull to the wingtips.

That’s why it’s not usually done with airliners during shows.
Warbirds with their small wingspan ( compared to airliners ) and design do it all the tim because high speed barrel rolls are in the requirements for such planes.

I discovered more than 3 decades ago the difference between an airliner ( choose the one you prefer ) and a plane built to handle almost everything ( Twin-Otter ) the hard way [ I was supposed to take a picture of a ship in a fjord… I took a picture of icebergs right below me while those on the other side too a picture of the sky, as the plane did a 80°ish bank turn around said ship before headingto the landing strip 30+km away. ( we got the ship through an Helo ( civilian version of the UH-1 ) flight that went Airwolf above a Greenland valley, sadly the ship helo pad was not rated for that type, so we had to commute with some Zodiacs. )

[ Full disclosure : the Twin Otter flight was between Iceland and Greenland and we chartered it, so it wasn’t a normal flight from the onset ]

Since then, regular airline flights, just makes me sleep. ( and gets looks of wonder from cabin crew when they have to wake me up in a 50 minutes flight to give me a coffee/tea/coca/whatever )

IRegertNothing, Esq.
IRegertNothing, Esq.
25 days ago

Test pilots are a different breed. I remember watching a documentary on the F-105 Thunderchief, and it included the initial test flights to see if the plane had the real world characteristics they expected from design and development. Among the many scary things they needed to evaluate were stall and spin recovery. So they took the prototype up to high altitude and deliberately put it into a flat spin in order to see if it was recoverable. The pilots found that the F-105 would essentially recover itself by lowering the nose and restoring airflow to the wings. As I’m watching the footage of the pilots recovering from the spin, I couldn’t stop thinking about how a pilot had to create one of the worst situations they could possibly find themselves in and then hope that they could figure a way out of it before having to eject or crashing. This seemingly includes a part where the pilot goes all Jesus Take the Wheel and waits to see if the plane will save itself. Holy shit balls, that’s crazy.

Guillaume Maurice
Guillaume Maurice
24 days ago

that’s military test pilots… To go into the flight enveloppe of a plane where noone has gone before ( and hopefully nobody else will ever go into ) and find what it takes to recover.

Now for civilian birds, they have very specific limitations in the test flights and there’s no way the test flights are going to go outside the plannified flight enveloppe ( unless something wrong happens )… Said enveloppe being usually quite limited compared to the calculated capacities of the airframe.

Hangover Grenade
Hangover Grenade
25 days ago

I think I like the barrel roll story better. The “selling planes” line is incredible.

Geekycop .
Geekycop .
23 days ago

I also recall an interview with the pilot describing that he put it into a 1g pull so “The plane never knew it was upside-down.”

Tom Herman
Tom Herman
25 days ago

When I was in the Army in 1969 a bunch of us GI’s were put on a charter flight.The pilot decided to thrill us with some aerobatics. While he didn’t do a complete roll, we were treated to steep banks and dives. Guys were throwing up all over the place. Flight attendants were pissed.

Rafael
Rafael
25 days ago

Wait, I’m not smart enough to understand all the details, but using my caveman logic, there was no supersonic boom, so they didn’t actually break the sound barrier… right?
I’m not saying that this isn’t impressive or crazy enough, just that they were being clickbaity decades before the Internet was even invented 🙂

Phuzz
Phuzz
25 days ago
Reply to  Rafael

There would have been a sonic-boom, but I doubt many people were in a place to hear it.
But yes, there’s a big difference between hitting Mach 1 in a dive (propeller aircraft could manage that!), and flying for hours at Mach 2 like Concorde did.

Last edited 25 days ago by Phuzz
Slow Joe Crow
Slow Joe Crow
25 days ago

TWA did accidentally send a Boeing 727 supersonic in the 70s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_841_%281979%29?wprov=sfla1

The Dude
The Dude
25 days ago

“I suppose in the long run Boeing is still victorious since it’s still officially around while Douglas technically is not.”

Great article, but I gotta disagree here. Douglas is technically not around, they’re still around under a different name: Boeing.

And Boeing is just a shell of it’s former self with the reverse take over.

Rafael
Rafael
25 days ago
Reply to  The Dude

Yes, I saw somewhere (maybe even here) how despite Boeing taking over Douglas, the cut-throat management of Douglas took over Boeing, and long story short, now we have falling wheels and exploding windows.

Joke #119!
Joke #119!
25 days ago
Reply to  Rafael

“Last Week Tonight” had a story about this.

Guillaume Maurice
Guillaume Maurice
24 days ago
Reply to  Rafael

That’s the conclusion many people came with… and honestly, I agree with that.

The whole quarter earning thing to appease shareholders is killing companies, some will take shortcuts in product security & quality (Boeing), others will just eat their own flesh ( fire people ), and some will just sell their most important assets to pad quarter revenues and end up as an empty husk that fill for chapter 11…

If you look at private companies ( parse : companies that while having open market shares, have a majority votes in the hand of a person/familly ), or companies with special share structures ( there’s so many examples from the two level of shares in Sweden { 1 Ericsson A = 1 vote, 100 Ericsson B = 1 vote, there’s enough Ericsson A shares to have a majority… And they are owned mostly by Investors AB [ Wallenberg Familly Holding ] and Handelsbanken [Swedish bank] } to the Michelin’s Société à Commandit par Action [which basically means that as long as the Michelin familly is the largest shareholder they control the company, now it also means that at the end of the fiscal year, they have to sign a check to cover the loses if the company make loses [ so if it ever happens and Michelin has to file for bankrupcy, the Michelin familly will have to pay up all the debt or also file for bankrupcy if they can’t ] )

The Dude
The Dude
25 days ago

Haha I had a feeling about that and what you just wrote is exactly how us native Washingtonians would describe it.

Geekycop .
Geekycop .
23 days ago
Reply to  The Dude

Are you old enough to remember the “The last one to leave Seattle, please turn off the lights” signs that periodically turned up whenever Boeing started their layoffs? The last one I remember seing was on the fence outside the Everett plant in about ’98-’99.

Wuffles Cookie
Wuffles Cookie
26 days ago

It’s a good story, maybe even a great one, and it’s repeated everywhere, including wikipedia. But most aerodynamicists I know are politely skeptical, and I am too. To put it bluntly, the DC-8 is too blunt to go supersonic and survive. It does not have supercritical wings, it does not have engine inlets design for supersonic flow, and it does not have an air data package designed for accurately measuring Mach numbers at the subsonic-supersonic transition. The best evidence that it didn’t go supersonic is the fact that the engines didn’t immediately suffer from massive compressor stall, the ailerons didn’t reverse as the entire wing went into supersonic flow, and the bow shock didn’t completely occlude the vertical control surfaces. All of these were consequences observed in the wind tunnel testing of the 747, which is a faster airplane and even it didn’t make it supersonic in a powered dive.

From the linked Smithsonian article:

[The speed of sound at altitude] is not 700 miles per hour: it’s a lot less. The aerodynamics department, I think under Roger Shaufele, prepared a set of charts. The Mach number itself isn’t used in a dive as a target because it’s much more accurate to use airspeed.

While it is true is that the speed of sound indeed is lower at altitude (assuming the standard atmosphere), Mach number is a dimensionless ratio who’s value depends on the fluid medium itself, temperature, pressure, and density. As a plane flies through the air, all of these values change constantly with local conditions, and simply looking at tables or charts will not give you anything close to enough fidelity to know for certain what your actual mach number is at any given moment. Directly measuring that with a machmeter is a fiddly task even with modern electronics and processing equipment, margins of error can frequently go above 3%. In 1961 with analog air data meters and no modern processing equipment, that error can be much larger. So while the statement “it’s much more accurate to use airspeed” may have been true when they pulled this stunt, it ignores the fact that using airspeed tables is already a gross approximation.

The plane allegedly hit Mach 1.012 by airspeed comparison, this a small enough margin to be well within the error of uncalibrated equipment and guessing at Mach number looking at speed tables. I like the story, but I don’t buy it being true.

Canopysaurus
Canopysaurus
25 days ago
Reply to  Wuffles Cookie

“When the legend becomes fact, print the legend”

Idiotking
Idiotking
25 days ago
Reply to  Wuffles Cookie

Given the fact that there were two chase planes designed to go past Mach 1 with them (one piloted by a guy intimately familiar with Mach numbers), I’m happy to believe the legend.

Wuffles Cookie
Wuffles Cookie
25 days ago
Reply to  Idiotking

Haha, true. But Yeager himself wasn’t sure he’d passed Mach 1 on the first supersonic flight, he just noted how unexpectedly smooth it was, and that his Machmeter was “all screwy”. It was the ground stations taking radar and sonic measurements that verified he had in fact done it.

Guido Sarducci
Guido Sarducci
25 days ago
Reply to  Wuffles Cookie

I’m interested to know if there were any recorded observations from Chuck Yeager or the pilot of the other chase plane which corroborate or conflict with Magruder’s story.

Eslader
Eslader
25 days ago
Reply to  Wuffles Cookie

While it is true is that the speed of sound indeed is lower at altitude (assuming the standard atmosphere), Mach number is a dimensionless ratio who’s value depends on the fluid medium itself, temperature, pressure, and density.

Yeah, that was the clever trick that stood out when I read it too. “We wanna be accurate, the Mach meter isn’t accurate, we’re gonna go with ‘airspeed.'”

Well, let’s see. The speed of sound at FL500 is roughly 573 knots. The 707 has a VMO of 373KIAS. So yeah, as you said, not much left of the plane if you try it.

But, we’re doing all sorts of weird crap, including measuring it in MPH which gives a bigger number and sounds more impressive. I strongly suspect they measured the ground speed, because at FL500 and a much more survivable 230kts, assuming no wind, the ground speed would be about 600kts. That’s well within the performance envelope and coincidentally a little above “the speed of sound at 40-50,000 feet.”

We saw similar crap I think last summer, when a commercial jet caught one hell of a tail wind and all the news outlets were going nuts because it “went supersonic.” No, it didn’t. It wasn’t anywhere close to supersonic, it just had a high ground speed, but that has nothing to do with going beyond Mach 1.

Fewer Cars More Hot Rods
Fewer Cars More Hot Rods
25 days ago
Reply to  Wuffles Cookie

You’re correct and also making the mistake of mixing facts with marketing. 😀

Der Foo
Der Foo
25 days ago
Reply to  Wuffles Cookie

Would any of the chase planes have been able to accurately, for the time, verify the actual air speed since they were designed to go mach speed?

Wuffles Cookie
Wuffles Cookie
25 days ago
Reply to  Der Foo

Almost certainly not. Chase planes are there to act as visual spotters for any sudden or unanticipated issues (ie fluid leaks, external damage, smoke) and to help the test pilots diagnose any issues that come up. The chase planes themselves are just regular planes without any special instrumentation, and it would be almost suicidally dangerous to follow an airliner into an attempted supersonic dive closely enough to be able to verify air data (if/when parts depart the airplane, you’re going to take it in the cockpit or engine intake). Also, transonic aerodynamics are finnicky, and even with modern equipment it’s really finnicky to tell exactly when you go supersonic using just measurements on the aircraft itself, that’s why pretty much all supersonic aero testing uses external measurments to validate numbers. The lack of external validation on the test discussed in the article is quite a big red flag.

No More Crossovers
No More Crossovers
26 days ago

This is one of like 4 eligible career paths for someone named Magruder

Canopysaurus
Canopysaurus
26 days ago

William Magruder went on to work for Lockheed on its L1011 program as a designer and test pilot. In 1971 Richard Nixon selected him to head the national SST program. Cost and other concerns killed the SST program despite Magruder’s arguments that continuing the program would be no more expensive – and result in valuable data collection- than the costs of winding the program down. He was ignored. Magruder then joined Piedmont Airlines as an Executive VP. He died on a golf course in Winston-Salem, NC after suffering a heart attack. He was 54. Only the good die young.

Last edited 26 days ago by Canopysaurus
Andrew Wyman
Andrew Wyman
26 days ago

What a time it was in those earlier airline days. Definitely a wild west attitude. Honestly I would have needed some new pants if I was one of the co-pilots on this flight.

The Dude
The Dude
25 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Wyman

So long as the airliner’s windows are rounded ????

44
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x