In article ,
Mike1 wrote:
Anyone have a source? Was it at flight-level, or a surface-extrapolated
number from an even higher gust at flight-level?

It was a wind from a GPS dropwindsonde, an actual measurement.

I'll use this opportunity to again suggest that tropical system reports
include maximum gust-encountered wind speeds along with MSW speeds,
since it is the gusts which do the majority of the wind-caused
structural damage. As force exerted by wind increases by the square of
wind-speed, a 237mph gust would exert over twice the force upon a
structure as 160mph winds. A strong building that might stand up all day
creaking and groaning at 160 could be destroyed in seconds by 200+.

The wind was well above the surface and would not have been felt at the
surface. NHC forecast advisories already include gusts.

Insufficiently-informative MSW-labeling schemes lead to goofy
revisionist business like a burst-phasing hurricane Andrew being altered
after the fact to a cat5 due to extreme gusts well in excess of the cat4
145MSW at landfall causing catastrophic damage.

Andrew was revised upward to a category 5 based on maximum sustained
winds. The category only depends upon sustained winds, not gusts.
--
Guns were not for girls. They were for boys. They were invented by
boys. They were invented by boys who had never gotten over their
disappointment that accompanying their own orgasm wasn't a big BOOM
sound. Lorrie Moore