By: Neil Medcalf
- 29th November 2005 at 17:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
X1 vs Miles dates
Here are some dates of important steps withing the two research programs.
X1- Spec issue date Dec 44
Mock up completed by Oct 45
First Flight- Dec 9 46
First Supersonic Flight Oct 14 47
Miles M52-
Spec issue date Autumn of 43
Go ahead given to Miles on Oct 8 43
M3B Falcon - L9705 fitted with wing and later tailplane of M52 Flew Aug 11 44
By early 46 90% of the design work was completed.
Feb 46 project cancelled
Feb 9 46 Air Commodore Whittle resigned from power jets.
Sometime in early 1946 the design info was given to the Americans.
Judging by these dates the Americans had plenty of time to go over the M52 data and make 'suitable' changes in there design to improve it.
As far as the reason for cancellation of the M52. Derek Wood in Project Cancelled ( which the above info comes from ) mentions the theory that after obtaining German research the though among the desision makers was that a straight wing aircraft could not "break the barrier" and that a swept wing aircraft was needed..
By: Vega ECM
- 29th November 2005 at 22:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Miles M52 Project in a different light.
Are all the best aircraft projects always cancelled or does cancellation provide the opportunity of unbound embellishment of what might have been?
Sure the M52 was right both aerodynamically and from a transonic stability perspective, but it needs a lot more than that to achieve the aeronautical feat of the middle of the twentieth century. This may not sit comfortably with a lot of people, but Miles Aircraft were just not up to the task. Consider Miles main bread and butter developement project of the 1942-44 period, the M33 Monitor. This was a total debacle, with several crashes, fundamental flight test problems left unresolved for months, a refusal of the test pilots to accept the aircraft for testing and eventually cancellation. Remember this aircraft was no more technically challenging than a Beech 18! You will have to work hard to convince me that they could move from this straight onto a successful supersonic aircraft program. Also Powerjets was a one man company ie Whittle. Now although he was undoubtedly a genius, at that time (even by his own admission) he was a burnt out man on the edge of a nervous breakdown.
Now as for claims of near complete (or even 50%) I have my doubts. When you look at project expenditure by 1945, £73k which represent on 23% of the total projected (estimated at £323k)airframe costs and I really doubt this would have funded much actual prototype construction. I would expect at least half (and probable closer to two thirds) of the project cost to be spent to get the prototype out of the hanger doors. I understand that the pacing item was the engine which was not to ready much before early 1947 ....and probably much latter. Of course I would love someone to prove me wrong with some photographs of the Shop floor at Woodley with views of the first prototype. This of course begs the question of just what did Miles spend 3 years doing? ...... The X1 was flying in just 2 years.....
I also understand that a very well known and respected aviation author has spent time in the states looking for evidence of M52 technology transfer. Despite extensive searches in the US National archives and Bell Aircraft own archive he found nothing! Many Bell engineers who worked on the X1 have publicly dismissed any the technology transfer claim and this I guess this is balanced by the public claims of the former Miles guys over here. If indeed there was any M52 technology transfer Bell certainly missed the significant of the all flying tail, (but there again I understand so did Hawker on the first Hunter). I still waiting for the proof either way before I decide if this is just another M52 myth.
On balance I think Ben Lockspears decision to cancel M52 was about right given the information available to him, i.e. a poor project management capability at Miles, little practical progress on the actual test article, and a rather poorly technical genius who had to supply the engine to make the program happen at all.... Compare this to what DH had to offer at this time (Feb 1946), ie a near complete prototype complete with an engine. No conspiracy theory needed here then. Had he left the Project running I think it would have certainly failed to go supersonic before the Bell X1, and may not have even flown.
The real tragedy was what happened at the RAE during this period. They had just taken over the Herman Goring test facility in occupied Germany. This was several orders of magnitude better than anything in the west for investigating Supersonic flight and within months of getting there the RAE had it up and running. If any technical facility had the capability to predict the DH108 transonic stability problems this was it. So why was it not spotted? ...... More simple miss-management I suspect.
New
By: Anonymous
- 30th November 2005 at 05:52Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:23
Saw a magpie out my window just now and the damn thing had the cheek to have an all moving tail (surface). I demanded it acknowledge who invented it first... the UK or the US and it just ignored me, so I settled the arguement with my .22.
If only it was so easy with other questions of intellectual ownership. :diablo:
By: XN923
- 30th November 2005 at 09:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This may not sit comfortably with a lot of people, but Miles Aircraft were just not up to the task.
I'm not sure this is necessarily true... Miles had a number of very successful projects, including some very innovative ones, under their belts including the M20 which was designed, built and tested in a very short space of time, was faster than a Hurricane and had much greater range. Most of the basic and advanced trainers supplied to the RAF at the time were Miles products (Pierre Closterman noted that the Miles Master was considerably better than the T6) and they were in a position to tender for the Brabazon products. I can't see that Miles would have been awarded the contract had they not been up to the task.
And look at Bell around the same era - their first attempt at a 'high performance' aircraft, the P59 Airacomet was dreadful - one test pilot described it as 'ponderous'. It was so lacking it never saw frontline service - and yet this was the outfit which first broke the sound barrier.
Also Powerjets was a one man company ie Whittle. Now although he was undoubtedly a genius, at that time (even by his own admission) he was a burnt out man on the edge of a nervous breakdown.
This is undeniable - and I think the crux. I can't see how the project would have been completed without Whittle - although that said, an engine had been completed and as a modification of an existing and proven design rather than an all new item was a path deliberately pursued by Whittle as the easiest way to get at the power needed to break Mach 1.
Now as for claims of near complete (or even 50%) I have my doubts. When you look at project expenditure by 1945, £73k which represent on 23% of the total projected (estimated at £323k)airframe costs and I really doubt this would have funded much actual prototype construction. I would expect at least half (and probable closer to two thirds) of the project cost to be spent to get the prototype out of the hanger doors.
The costs were of a small design team (around 40 people) and tests of the 'Gillette Falcon' with M52 wings and tail. The total projected costs were as I understand it £250,000 rather than £323,000. There are photographs of completed mock-ups and the accounts I have read do refer to two airframes 'substantially complete' although I have no evidence to hand for this.
This of course begs the question of just what did Miles spend 3 years doing? ...... The X1 was flying in just 2 years.....
The Miles design team was small, and Britain had been at war for nearly four years when the project was started. I have no details of the Bell team but I am willing to bet they had a lot more resource at their disposal. Furthermore I don't know what research Bell had to do, or whether they gambled and got their sums right more or less by chance. The Miles team used the only existing research on supersonics - i.e. bullets and shell casings - and built a flying demonstrator of the wings and tail surfaces.
I also understand that a very well known and respected aviation author has spent time in the states looking for evidence of M52 technology transfer. Despite extensive searches in the US National archives and Bell Aircraft own archive he found nothing!
No real surprise given that the data wasn't handed to Bell until after they had completed principle design work - with conventional elevators. However, given the jury rigged nature of the X-1's all flying tail I don't doubt that if there was any of the Miles design in the X-1 this was it. Looking at the two designs afterwards, the M52 actually has slightly better area ruling than the X-1 - again, purely by chance.
On balance I think Ben Lockspears decision to cancel M52 was about right given the information available to him
Again, probably right but a shame nonetheless.
Had he left the Project running I think it would have certainly failed to go supersonic before the Bell X1, and may not have even flown.
Based on what? On balance I agree that it would have been a stretch to beat the X-1 into the air and even more to Mach 1. However, I can't help feeling that the Vickers project proved that the M52 was eminently capable of flying and breaking the sound barrier. I don't see any proof of significant mismanagement at Miles and although Whittle had left the project, the design work on the engine was done.
For me the tragedy is not that Britain was beaten to the sound barrier - I think that's an optimistic assessment. However, had the aircraft flown the British aircraft industry could have been moved five, even ten years ahead of where it was in the mid-late 50s, certainly in terms of supersonic interceptors. I still wonder though what could have been achieved by Vickers had they been allowed to continue with the models - swept wings? delta planforms? Even a successful tail-less design? And pilotless aircraft may have been a lot more advanced than they currently are.
By: Flanker_man
- 30th November 2005 at 12:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Vega ECM,
Please stop clouding the issue with facts and reasoned argument :mad:
It is a well known fact that the US stole all our best designs, denied us access to atomic secrets, and stole all the best wartime German research data from under our very noses !!! :diablo:
By: Vega ECM
- 30th November 2005 at 22:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The M52 and DH108
XN923
You can only dine out on passed glory for so long. Sure up until about 1942 Miles did design and produce some fine aircraft, but the Monitor saga indicated that something had gone seriously amiss at Miles. The test pilots refusing to release the aircraft for test was I believe unique in the war years. My guess is that Miles had lost their core project management experience either to other aircraft companies or to the front line. The other thing to note is that in an expanding market such as Bell was in during the war years, as long as your last product was not a public disaster you will always get another project, but in a contracting market you are as only as good as last project.... and in case of the M52 that was the M33 Monitor debacle.
Although the engine had indeed run it was a very long way from having its type/flying release. The film of it running shows the outer casing very rapidly glowing red and melting. It takes time, expertise and money to sort these kind of problems out.
As for the status of the first prototype, my information comes from the letter from the air ministry to Ben Lockspeiser where air minister says "progress does not seem to be very rapid" and "the firm has spent £73000 to November 30 1945 and estimates it will cost £250000 to complete". Now it is normal for this to mean that the outstanding cash estimate is to complete the project from that date onwards i.e. total airframe cost £323K. If you look at spend profiles from that time about a third of the money was spent producing the design data, another third was spent making the first test articles and the final third was spent testing. Hence the only hard evidence points towards the fact that prototype construction had not started. I have seen many written claims in the aviation press that there was "one 90% complete" prototype, "two 50% complete prototypes", and many points in between, but absolutely nothing to verify these claims. Without proof otherwise (of which I would love someone to produce) my own conclusion is that Miles were a long way behind schedule and in early 1946 there were no prototypes....... and hence no serious threat to beating the X1 to Mach 1.
In the 1940's design teams were a fraction of the size they are today. The whole Bristol Brabazon design was done with a little over 200 engineers. Today over five times that number work on each Airbus wing design alone. Please consider that Lockheed is reported to have designed and flown the P80 in around 100 days with a design staff of just 40 people. I doubt Bells team was that much bigger than Miles but I must admit to not knowing for sure. The starting point for both teams, and for that matter the German DFS346 was all the same and quite logical i.e. the supersonic bullet profile. But that in itself does not prove that all parties stole each other basic design data or philosophies.
In a nutshell the Miles M52 was the right design solution but in the wrong development circumstances.........but life's a bitch.
But why did DH foul up the 108 so much! I'm sure that with a lengthen fuselage and an all flying horizontal tail it may have just cut the mustard in terms of transonic stability. Mach 1 may just have been on in an early 1947 time frame.... in a dive of course.
By: ollieholmes
- 30th November 2005 at 23:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The final swallow did have a slightly lengthened fuesalagae. I am not sure by how much due to going by the plan i have and not knowing the scale of it.
By: alertken
- 2nd December 2005 at 09:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
M.52: Dead End.
1. RAE/1943 was run by a Taffia who disdained the arrogance of owner- pioneers like Fred Miles. RAE saw Aero's job as to defeat the King's enemies, not to expand frontiers. Supersonic dash is needed only in close proximity to hostility. Straight wings would take 2 miles to unstick, so must be based far from strafers. A razor-wing bullet could lift 1, maybe 2 of pilot, weapon, fuel.
2. Minister of Aircraft Production Sir Stafford Cripps visited Woodley and was impressed by "enterprising designs addressing fantastic problems"(Derek Wood, Project Cancelled, Jane's P.29). The Miles brothers seemed fit for more than Phillips&Powis were then building; Fred's distinctive wife Blossom will have struck Lady Isobel. What can we give them? A sideshow, Boyo.
3. In February,1946 the King had no enemies; UK was broke; Miles Aircraft, trying to sell new gluecraft v Bonanza and surplus Grasshoppers, was incredible as a combat production stable cf empty Hawker/ Supermarine; M.52 was drifting vaguely; RAE/NGTE Pyestock's Taffs gave low priority to a plenum-chamber-burning turbofan, because the industry that would build it couldn't then make stovepipes work. Cancellation was Labour's first public procurement squander, so MoS' Sir Ben Lockspeiser tried to ease Cabinet Minister Cripps' embarrassment by stressing pilot safety, and has been traduced ever since.
4 The point about all-flying tails is the actuator handling stress. List, please, UK's good experience in such things, then, or since.
By: GASML
- 2nd December 2005 at 11:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I hate to tell you chaps, but the French got there first. Actually it was the Paris-based Brazilian Alberto Santos Dumont who came up with the 'flying tail' idea on his Demoiselle in about 1907!
By: alertken
- 4th December 2005 at 21:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
M.52
Eric Mc/dhfan: Atoms.
1. dhfan is on the nose. I was a sweet babe at the time, so this post rests on work of Official Historians, Prof. M.Gowing, 1974, Blue Danube; her assistant Lorna Arnold, 2002, Yellow Suns; H.Wynn, MoD Air Historical Branch, V-Force. If you wish to dismiss them as covering-up, you must discredit 3,000pp. plus sources to do so. Key dates are: canx. M.52, 2/46; McMahon Act in force 1/8/46; PM's approval of UK-solo nuke, 7/1/47; UK/US Nuclear Energy Memorandum, 3/7/58.
2. 30 Brits worked in US on the Manhattan Project; 1 as the Voice of Abraham did the radio countdown of the Bikini shot, 7/46, before their ejection. Team Leader Sir W.Penney went to F.Halstead, the rest dispersed, some stayed in the sun. After MoS chose (to be) Victor/Vulcan in July,47 Penney was tasked to get on with it, so recruited a good Manhattan guy, K.Fuchs (yes, him, the spy). They had the internals in their heads. NoBrit had worked on the ballistic case so we started with Barnes Wallis' Tallboy. That is why Blue Danube and (Fuchs') first Soviet and Chinese Bombs did not look like Fat Man. But they were. We did it all on our lonesomes, so it took till mid-58 to deploy something faintly, hazardously, briefly useable.
3. Attlee, and Churchill in Opposition,felt US had denied us "our" Bomb, though the science, beginning with Einstein, filtered through Danish/French/German brains, too. UK was suspicious of Sen. Brien McMahon, when the future of Eire was an issue. Many still assume his Act was anti-Brit. Not so: it was to assert Federal control over electricity generation and civilian control over "just another weapon": Curtis LeMay (later, Gen.Strangelove) frightened everyone: done it (twice), do it again.
4. In 1956 we were blagging US H-Bomb data: Penney asked his team "does anybody know how it's done...embarrassed silence." Suez delayed a deal; Sputnik caused it. We won Thor, thus Blue Streak IRBM, Red Snow as the warhead of Yellow Sun 2 gravity Bomb and Blue Steel ASM, and the laydown family retained as WE177 to March,1998.
5. In Aero we Brits are good at anti-Yank conspiracy theories. Harken unto the immortal words of Rhett Butler, when Scarlet O'Hara was pi$$ed at him: "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Miles, M.52, UK as a market, as a threat: minnows.
By: PMN1
- 11th December 2007 at 19:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If anyone serves flak over British aviation industry missing out on opportunities it's British politicians - who consistently dashed the prize out of British manufacurers' hands just when it was within reach.
Given what happened to British aviation, did it loose anything by the M52 not flying?
By: J Boyle
- 11th December 2007 at 19:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Despite all the tales of America trying to kill British industry, steal their secrets, molest their women...(my most recent paranoid favorite is the "sabotage" of the Supermaine Swift) read any history and it's clear UK governments have did more to injure the UK aerospace industry than the Americans and Germans (in the war) combined.
After all, they did it to the auto industry too.
Or you can just blame the Japanese for that one.
By: Oxcart
- 11th December 2007 at 20:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I do get fed up with documentaries in this country claiming that Britain invented just about everything- but i suspect similar things happen in other countries too!
Posts: 99
By: Neil Medcalf - 29th November 2005 at 17:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
X1 vs Miles dates
Here are some dates of important steps withing the two research programs.
X1- Spec issue date Dec 44
Mock up completed by Oct 45
First Flight- Dec 9 46
First Supersonic Flight Oct 14 47
Miles M52-
Spec issue date Autumn of 43
Go ahead given to Miles on Oct 8 43
M3B Falcon - L9705 fitted with wing and later tailplane of M52 Flew Aug 11 44
By early 46 90% of the design work was completed.
Feb 46 project cancelled
Feb 9 46 Air Commodore Whittle resigned from power jets.
Sometime in early 1946 the design info was given to the Americans.
Judging by these dates the Americans had plenty of time to go over the M52 data and make 'suitable' changes in there design to improve it.
As far as the reason for cancellation of the M52. Derek Wood in Project Cancelled ( which the above info comes from ) mentions the theory that after obtaining German research the though among the desision makers was that a straight wing aircraft could not "break the barrier" and that a swept wing aircraft was needed..
Neil Medcalf
Posts: 472
By: Vega ECM - 29th November 2005 at 22:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Miles M52 Project in a different light.
Are all the best aircraft projects always cancelled or does cancellation provide the opportunity of unbound embellishment of what might have been?
Sure the M52 was right both aerodynamically and from a transonic stability perspective, but it needs a lot more than that to achieve the aeronautical feat of the middle of the twentieth century. This may not sit comfortably with a lot of people, but Miles Aircraft were just not up to the task. Consider Miles main bread and butter developement project of the 1942-44 period, the M33 Monitor. This was a total debacle, with several crashes, fundamental flight test problems left unresolved for months, a refusal of the test pilots to accept the aircraft for testing and eventually cancellation. Remember this aircraft was no more technically challenging than a Beech 18! You will have to work hard to convince me that they could move from this straight onto a successful supersonic aircraft program. Also Powerjets was a one man company ie Whittle. Now although he was undoubtedly a genius, at that time (even by his own admission) he was a burnt out man on the edge of a nervous breakdown.
Now as for claims of near complete (or even 50%) I have my doubts. When you look at project expenditure by 1945, £73k which represent on 23% of the total projected (estimated at £323k)airframe costs and I really doubt this would have funded much actual prototype construction. I would expect at least half (and probable closer to two thirds) of the project cost to be spent to get the prototype out of the hanger doors. I understand that the pacing item was the engine which was not to ready much before early 1947 ....and probably much latter. Of course I would love someone to prove me wrong with some photographs of the Shop floor at Woodley with views of the first prototype. This of course begs the question of just what did Miles spend 3 years doing? ...... The X1 was flying in just 2 years.....
I also understand that a very well known and respected aviation author has spent time in the states looking for evidence of M52 technology transfer. Despite extensive searches in the US National archives and Bell Aircraft own archive he found nothing! Many Bell engineers who worked on the X1 have publicly dismissed any the technology transfer claim and this I guess this is balanced by the public claims of the former Miles guys over here. If indeed there was any M52 technology transfer Bell certainly missed the significant of the all flying tail, (but there again I understand so did Hawker on the first Hunter). I still waiting for the proof either way before I decide if this is just another M52 myth.
On balance I think Ben Lockspears decision to cancel M52 was about right given the information available to him, i.e. a poor project management capability at Miles, little practical progress on the actual test article, and a rather poorly technical genius who had to supply the engine to make the program happen at all.... Compare this to what DH had to offer at this time (Feb 1946), ie a near complete prototype complete with an engine. No conspiracy theory needed here then. Had he left the Project running I think it would have certainly failed to go supersonic before the Bell X1, and may not have even flown.
The real tragedy was what happened at the RAE during this period. They had just taken over the Herman Goring test facility in occupied Germany. This was several orders of magnitude better than anything in the west for investigating Supersonic flight and within months of getting there the RAE had it up and running. If any technical facility had the capability to predict the DH108 transonic stability problems this was it. So why was it not spotted? ...... More simple miss-management I suspect.
By: Anonymous - 30th November 2005 at 05:52 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:23
Saw a magpie out my window just now and the damn thing had the cheek to have an all moving tail (surface). I demanded it acknowledge who invented it first... the UK or the US and it just ignored me, so I settled the arguement with my .22.
If only it was so easy with other questions of intellectual ownership. :diablo:
Posts: 1,114
By: XN923 - 30th November 2005 at 09:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm not sure this is necessarily true... Miles had a number of very successful projects, including some very innovative ones, under their belts including the M20 which was designed, built and tested in a very short space of time, was faster than a Hurricane and had much greater range. Most of the basic and advanced trainers supplied to the RAF at the time were Miles products (Pierre Closterman noted that the Miles Master was considerably better than the T6) and they were in a position to tender for the Brabazon products. I can't see that Miles would have been awarded the contract had they not been up to the task.
And look at Bell around the same era - their first attempt at a 'high performance' aircraft, the P59 Airacomet was dreadful - one test pilot described it as 'ponderous'. It was so lacking it never saw frontline service - and yet this was the outfit which first broke the sound barrier.
This is undeniable - and I think the crux. I can't see how the project would have been completed without Whittle - although that said, an engine had been completed and as a modification of an existing and proven design rather than an all new item was a path deliberately pursued by Whittle as the easiest way to get at the power needed to break Mach 1.
The costs were of a small design team (around 40 people) and tests of the 'Gillette Falcon' with M52 wings and tail. The total projected costs were as I understand it £250,000 rather than £323,000. There are photographs of completed mock-ups and the accounts I have read do refer to two airframes 'substantially complete' although I have no evidence to hand for this.
The Miles design team was small, and Britain had been at war for nearly four years when the project was started. I have no details of the Bell team but I am willing to bet they had a lot more resource at their disposal. Furthermore I don't know what research Bell had to do, or whether they gambled and got their sums right more or less by chance. The Miles team used the only existing research on supersonics - i.e. bullets and shell casings - and built a flying demonstrator of the wings and tail surfaces.
No real surprise given that the data wasn't handed to Bell until after they had completed principle design work - with conventional elevators. However, given the jury rigged nature of the X-1's all flying tail I don't doubt that if there was any of the Miles design in the X-1 this was it. Looking at the two designs afterwards, the M52 actually has slightly better area ruling than the X-1 - again, purely by chance.
Again, probably right but a shame nonetheless.
Based on what? On balance I agree that it would have been a stretch to beat the X-1 into the air and even more to Mach 1. However, I can't help feeling that the Vickers project proved that the M52 was eminently capable of flying and breaking the sound barrier. I don't see any proof of significant mismanagement at Miles and although Whittle had left the project, the design work on the engine was done.
For me the tragedy is not that Britain was beaten to the sound barrier - I think that's an optimistic assessment. However, had the aircraft flown the British aircraft industry could have been moved five, even ten years ahead of where it was in the mid-late 50s, certainly in terms of supersonic interceptors. I still wonder though what could have been achieved by Vickers had they been allowed to continue with the models - swept wings? delta planforms? Even a successful tail-less design? And pilotless aircraft may have been a lot more advanced than they currently are.
Posts: 3,652
By: Flanker_man - 30th November 2005 at 12:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Vega ECM,
Please stop clouding the issue with facts and reasoned argument :mad:
It is a well known fact that the US stole all our best designs, denied us access to atomic secrets, and stole all the best wartime German research data from under our very noses !!! :diablo:
The guy down the pub says so....................
Ken
PS - And they seduced all our women !!!
Posts: 472
By: Vega ECM - 30th November 2005 at 22:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The M52 and DH108
XN923
You can only dine out on passed glory for so long. Sure up until about 1942 Miles did design and produce some fine aircraft, but the Monitor saga indicated that something had gone seriously amiss at Miles. The test pilots refusing to release the aircraft for test was I believe unique in the war years. My guess is that Miles had lost their core project management experience either to other aircraft companies or to the front line. The other thing to note is that in an expanding market such as Bell was in during the war years, as long as your last product was not a public disaster you will always get another project, but in a contracting market you are as only as good as last project.... and in case of the M52 that was the M33 Monitor debacle.
Although the engine had indeed run it was a very long way from having its type/flying release. The film of it running shows the outer casing very rapidly glowing red and melting. It takes time, expertise and money to sort these kind of problems out.
As for the status of the first prototype, my information comes from the letter from the air ministry to Ben Lockspeiser where air minister says "progress does not seem to be very rapid" and "the firm has spent £73000 to November 30 1945 and estimates it will cost £250000 to complete". Now it is normal for this to mean that the outstanding cash estimate is to complete the project from that date onwards i.e. total airframe cost £323K. If you look at spend profiles from that time about a third of the money was spent producing the design data, another third was spent making the first test articles and the final third was spent testing. Hence the only hard evidence points towards the fact that prototype construction had not started. I have seen many written claims in the aviation press that there was "one 90% complete" prototype, "two 50% complete prototypes", and many points in between, but absolutely nothing to verify these claims. Without proof otherwise (of which I would love someone to produce) my own conclusion is that Miles were a long way behind schedule and in early 1946 there were no prototypes....... and hence no serious threat to beating the X1 to Mach 1.
In the 1940's design teams were a fraction of the size they are today. The whole Bristol Brabazon design was done with a little over 200 engineers. Today over five times that number work on each Airbus wing design alone. Please consider that Lockheed is reported to have designed and flown the P80 in around 100 days with a design staff of just 40 people. I doubt Bells team was that much bigger than Miles but I must admit to not knowing for sure. The starting point for both teams, and for that matter the German DFS346 was all the same and quite logical i.e. the supersonic bullet profile. But that in itself does not prove that all parties stole each other basic design data or philosophies.
In a nutshell the Miles M52 was the right design solution but in the wrong development circumstances.........but life's a bitch.
But why did DH foul up the 108 so much! I'm sure that with a lengthen fuselage and an all flying horizontal tail it may have just cut the mustard in terms of transonic stability. Mach 1 may just have been on in an early 1947 time frame.... in a dive of course.
Posts: 2,392
By: ollieholmes - 30th November 2005 at 23:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The final swallow did have a slightly lengthened fuesalagae. I am not sure by how much due to going by the plan i have and not knowing the scale of it.
Posts: 9,871
By: J Boyle - 1st December 2005 at 05:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It wasn't difficult!!! :dev2: :dev2: :dev2:
My Uk-born wife was more than willing to escape to the colonies....but despite my best efforts, she wouldn't give up any of your aerospace secrets!
Posts: 887
By: alertken - 2nd December 2005 at 09:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
M.52: Dead End.
1. RAE/1943 was run by a Taffia who disdained the arrogance of owner- pioneers like Fred Miles. RAE saw Aero's job as to defeat the King's enemies, not to expand frontiers. Supersonic dash is needed only in close proximity to hostility. Straight wings would take 2 miles to unstick, so must be based far from strafers. A razor-wing bullet could lift 1, maybe 2 of pilot, weapon, fuel.
2. Minister of Aircraft Production Sir Stafford Cripps visited Woodley and was impressed by "enterprising designs addressing fantastic problems"(Derek Wood, Project Cancelled, Jane's P.29). The Miles brothers seemed fit for more than Phillips&Powis were then building; Fred's distinctive wife Blossom will have struck Lady Isobel. What can we give them? A sideshow, Boyo.
3. In February,1946 the King had no enemies; UK was broke; Miles Aircraft, trying to sell new gluecraft v Bonanza and surplus Grasshoppers, was incredible as a combat production stable cf empty Hawker/ Supermarine; M.52 was drifting vaguely; RAE/NGTE Pyestock's Taffs gave low priority to a plenum-chamber-burning turbofan, because the industry that would build it couldn't then make stovepipes work. Cancellation was Labour's first public procurement squander, so MoS' Sir Ben Lockspeiser tried to ease Cabinet Minister Cripps' embarrassment by stressing pilot safety, and has been traduced ever since.
4 The point about all-flying tails is the actuator handling stress. List, please, UK's good experience in such things, then, or since.
Posts: 650
By: GASML - 2nd December 2005 at 11:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I hate to tell you chaps, but the French got there first. Actually it was the Paris-based Brazilian Alberto Santos Dumont who came up with the 'flying tail' idea on his Demoiselle in about 1907!
The pics by the way are from a great site if you like this sort of aeroplane. www.thosemagnificentmen.co.uk
Now back to saving up for that Sopwith Camel on e-bay!
Posts: 887
By: alertken - 4th December 2005 at 21:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
M.52
Eric Mc/dhfan: Atoms.
1. dhfan is on the nose. I was a sweet babe at the time, so this post rests on work of Official Historians, Prof. M.Gowing, 1974, Blue Danube; her assistant Lorna Arnold, 2002, Yellow Suns; H.Wynn, MoD Air Historical Branch, V-Force. If you wish to dismiss them as covering-up, you must discredit 3,000pp. plus sources to do so. Key dates are: canx. M.52, 2/46; McMahon Act in force 1/8/46; PM's approval of UK-solo nuke, 7/1/47; UK/US Nuclear Energy Memorandum, 3/7/58.
2. 30 Brits worked in US on the Manhattan Project; 1 as the Voice of Abraham did the radio countdown of the Bikini shot, 7/46, before their ejection. Team Leader Sir W.Penney went to F.Halstead, the rest dispersed, some stayed in the sun. After MoS chose (to be) Victor/Vulcan in July,47 Penney was tasked to get on with it, so recruited a good Manhattan guy, K.Fuchs (yes, him, the spy). They had the internals in their heads. NoBrit had worked on the ballistic case so we started with Barnes Wallis' Tallboy. That is why Blue Danube and (Fuchs') first Soviet and Chinese Bombs did not look like Fat Man. But they were. We did it all on our lonesomes, so it took till mid-58 to deploy something faintly, hazardously, briefly useable.
3. Attlee, and Churchill in Opposition,felt US had denied us "our" Bomb, though the science, beginning with Einstein, filtered through Danish/French/German brains, too. UK was suspicious of Sen. Brien McMahon, when the future of Eire was an issue. Many still assume his Act was anti-Brit. Not so: it was to assert Federal control over electricity generation and civilian control over "just another weapon": Curtis LeMay (later, Gen.Strangelove) frightened everyone: done it (twice), do it again.
4. In 1956 we were blagging US H-Bomb data: Penney asked his team "does anybody know how it's done...embarrassed silence." Suez delayed a deal; Sputnik caused it. We won Thor, thus Blue Streak IRBM, Red Snow as the warhead of Yellow Sun 2 gravity Bomb and Blue Steel ASM, and the laydown family retained as WE177 to March,1998.
5. In Aero we Brits are good at anti-Yank conspiracy theories. Harken unto the immortal words of Rhett Butler, when Scarlet O'Hara was pi$$ed at him: "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Miles, M.52, UK as a market, as a threat: minnows.
Posts: 338
By: PMN1 - 11th December 2007 at 19:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Given what happened to British aviation, did it loose anything by the M52 not flying?
Posts: 9,871
By: J Boyle - 11th December 2007 at 19:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Despite all the tales of America trying to kill British industry, steal their secrets, molest their women...(my most recent paranoid favorite is the "sabotage" of the Supermaine Swift) read any history and it's clear UK governments have did more to injure the UK aerospace industry than the Americans and Germans (in the war) combined.
After all, they did it to the auto industry too.
Or you can just blame the Japanese for that one.
Posts: 2,094
By: Oxcart - 11th December 2007 at 20:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I do get fed up with documentaries in this country claiming that Britain invented just about everything- but i suspect similar things happen in other countries too!
Posts: 708
By: Robert Hilton - 11th December 2007 at 20:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But we did! ;)
Posts: 1,751
By: Bruggen 130 - 12th December 2007 at 03:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We certainly invented sarcasm:D
Posts: 708
By: Robert Hilton - 12th December 2007 at 06:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And we're so good at it. A pity the same can't be said for other things.
Posts: 1,114
By: XN923 - 12th December 2007 at 09:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
At bringing dead threads back to life, the British are second to none.
'It's alive! It's alive!'
We can do sentence construction better as well:
:D :D :D
Posts: 1,085
By: Paul F - 12th December 2007 at 10:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thats because we invented the English language!
(Though I concede that we did perhaps "borrow" a few word from other tongues;) )
:D :D :D
Posts: 7,877
By: Arthur - 12th December 2007 at 10:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That should be wordS :p