By: mike currill
- 13th December 2007 at 17:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm sure I remember reading an account of the early flights of the X-1 by Chuck Yeager. According to this account, the aircraft was first flown without the all-flying tail and was nigh-on uncontrollable. It was only then that the all moving surfaces were 'jury rigged' to the aircraft and this enabled Yeager to break the sound barrier in a shallow dive while retaining control.
If this is the case, it bears out the idea that the all-flying tail was not part of the existing design of the X-1, and makes it look like the research came from elsewhere. In fact the account made it sound like the all flying tail was a last throw of the dice to see if the X-1 could be controlled at all in transonic conditions.
Obviously I can't point to this account (does it sound familiar to anyone else?) and it certainly doesn't say that the research came from Miles. However it does seem like it wasn't taken seriously until serious stability issues had come to light after the aircraft had already been flown. Could it be that after the initial problems, Bell engineers went looking through the Miles research for leads to a solution?
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the decision to try the flying tailplane was that Chuck Yeager had reported problems with pitch control from about m0.85 with the conventional tailplane/elevator setup. I think that was when Bell really started to take the flying tailplane seriously.
By: Zoe Brain
- 19th September 2008 at 17:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Stories My Father Told Me
In 1943, my father was at Liverpool University, studying engineering. He wanted to build bridges, and due to timetabling constraints, the only way he could complete his degree in the time available was to take a course on supersonic fluid flow in steam turbines, in addition to his structures courses.
In 1944, with experience in both stress calculations and supersonic aerodynamics, he was assigned as an aerodynamicist and stress analyst for the wings of the Miles M52.
Back in the 60's, he told me about all the things that happened, including the Tall Story about the Miles Monitor, the one about the Boffin in the Back, as described in "Cat's Eyes" Cunningham's book.
They had severe problems with the cowlings, ones that hadn't appeared in the wind-tunnel tests. They kept on blowing off in flight.
A cramped compartment was built inside the Monitor prototype, with a small sideways-looking mirror and camera. He went inside, and all he could see was the cowling.
Would the cowling blow off? Not on your Dame Nelly Melba. So he asked the pilot (Don Brown?) to do some aerobatics, to try to trigger the condition. Still no joy. Finally, he asked the pilot to pull out all the stops, and the Monitor was put through aerobatics so violent, and g-forces so strong, that observers on the ground blanched. My father could see nothing of this, his view was just a small porthole, a few inches in diameter, the cowling blocking his view. Now this time the cowling vibrated, shuddered, and looked as if it was loosening. Just a bit more was all that was needed.
It is not true that he said "I say pilot, could you do that again, only a bit faster?" as the Tall Tale would have it. He was from Derbyshire, not the Home Counties. But the sentiment was the same.
When he later saw the films of the most spectacular and dangerous aerial display ever seen over Woodley, in an aircraft he was in, he fainted.
I also remember him telling me of the events in 1946. All the technical drawings, all the calculations, even the analogue computer he'd invented to make the calculations quicker, all were put in a set of Tea Chests, marked to be consigned to Bell Aircraft in the USA. According to him, the wings were fully constructed, each "cell" with a different vibration frequency to avoid flutter during transonic conditions, and the first airframe perhaps 80% complete. The afterburning engine had just been tested to 100% power, but the escape capsule was iffy. They had German POWs from RAE with Me262/Me163 experience begging for a chance to fly it, no matter what the risk.
All the stories that have become popularly known in the 80's and later were told to me some 15 years earlier.
My father died in 1993, and I miss him terribly.
I'm recording this for my son, Andrew, who he never got a chance to meet.
By: Bager1968
- 24th May 2009 at 21:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Found this on a website and it was the miles company who invented it in 1943
.....
The Miles M.52 had many advanced features such as the ultra-thin BI-convex wings , an annular air intake, an all-moving tailplane (which was built and tested on the Miles "Gillette Falcon" in 1943) and a complete escape capsule for the pilot.
Aside from all the examples of earlier aircraft with "all-moving tailplanes", the Curtis XP-42 also flew with a one-piece, "all-flying" horizontal stabilizer well before the Miles M52 data ever went to the US.
The XP-42 was the 4th production P-36A, delivered in March 1939 with a number of modifications for better streamlining.
It was fitted with the "all-flying" horizontal stabilizer in 1942, and used to gather data on the aerodynamics of that configuration.
It was later cannibalized for parts, and scrapped in 1947.
The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA)* was the governmental agency tasked with undertaking, promoting, and institutionalizing aeronautical research. Founded in 1915, NACA was involved in all experimental aerodynamics research by not only the government, but the private companies... so NACA would have been involved in the XP-42 testing.
NACA was also a major part of the X-1 program... so they already had the basics of the idea well before the Miles data was transferred.
Whether the Curtis data, or the Miles data, was more important... or whether either played any part at all, is nearly impossible to tell without someone digging into the X-1 program records.
By: Brian Doherty
- 24th May 2009 at 23:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is there anything about the M52 in the book 'Wings Over Woodly', I read it a number of years ago but somebody has nicked my copy and my memory is not that good.
By: longshot
- 28th May 2009 at 18:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wings over Woodley
Brian....I read a library copy a few months ago and I'm pretty sure there's a page or two with pics of the M-52. Public library is probably the best way to get it....Wings over Woodley is almost as hard to buy as the Miles Putnam. The blockbuster Air Britain Miles book (Volume I) is out now but think the M-52 won't appear till VolIII.
I think the M-52 should have been completed and flown (suck it and see?) but the X-1 programme had 3 features that were better thought out than the M-52....
1) it was dropped from a carrier 7-8 miles up
2) it was rocket powered....no air intake design problems
3) a glide landing to a generous desert runway perhaps simplified recovery
By: HarryMann
- 28th May 2011 at 01:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the M-52 should have been completed and flown (suck it and see?) but the X-1 programme had 3 features that were better thought out than the M-52....
1) it was dropped from a carrier 7-8 miles up
2) it was rocket powered....no air intake design problems
3) a glide landing to a generous desert runway perhaps simplified recovery
1,2 and 3 hardly qualify it as the first aircraft to exceed Mach 1 then... more like an air launched missile with little ability to maneouvre to a landing either :)
==============
For those saying the Brits are just whinging about stolen technology...
The first fuel-flow altitude correction capsule used on the early RR Derwents, was designed by Ricardos. We gave the US (and controversially Russia) some of these as Gas Turbine examples. Sir Harry Ricardo apparently was interested to see a year or two later a patent applied for such a device - with his very drawing for that part being used to support it... by G.E.
By: J Boyle
- 28th May 2011 at 02:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1,2 and 3 hardly qualify it as the first aircraft to exceed Mach 1...
I thought aircraft was anything that flies.
Helicopter, balloon, air launched are all aircraft.
You can certainly claim the X-1 was not a self-launching airplane, but that's about all. Parts 2 & 3 also apply to the Me-163 and I don't hear anyone NOT calling the Komet an airplane.
We gave the US (and controversially Russia) some of these as Gas Turbine examples.
At least the US didn't use UK-designed engines to kill UN personnel and shoot down aircraft (including Commonwealth) in Korea. :)
By: alertken
- 28th May 2011 at 09:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
JB: UK-designed engines to kill UN personnel. Unintended consequences. Seemed a good idea at the time.
In Sept.1946:
- UK had just negotiated its US Reconstruction Loan, by which £ was to become convertible 7/47. We feared its collapse (which did occur).
- Truman intended to withdraw all GIs from Europe before the 1948 Presidential Election.
- Uncle Joe had won the War for us and was our friend.
- UK was very cold and broke. We were onway to quitting India; we were trying to implement the promises made in Dec.1942 that our people, then being bombed and killed, would this time have a land fit for heroes to live in. But no-one wanted our £: how would we eat?
So we did 2 things. Bartered lots of aeroplanes with fascist Peron, for his meat (no battery chickens then). He did not "buy" Meteors &tc. And Attlee told the President of the Board of Trade, ex-MAP Cripps, to do the same with Uncle Joe: Ukrainian wheat for...what did we have that he might want? Ah, centrifugal turbojets no more advanced than booty he already had.
So Oct.,1946 we bartered 10 (later,30) Derwent (to become RD-500)/10 (later,25) Nene (to become RD-45 & VK-1). Stalin could have based LaGG-15, MiG-15 on axial Jumo 004/RD.10 and endured low longevity.
But Stalin strutted and things turned sour. US and UK felt they had tried hard to help our valiant Ally emerge from ghastly Barbarossa, but Truman became "tired of babying the Soviets". Marshall Aid, Berlin Blockade, NATO, Warsaw Pact, the Cold and hot Korean Wars followed.
If "fault", then it was collective failure of comprehension. We thought he was seeking World Domination; he feared we intended to revive Germany and point her East.
By: pobjoy pete
- 28th May 2011 at 09:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This could lead to a discussion re the Cessna 172 v Beagle Airdale,
Comet v 707, Trident v 727, Hunter v Sabre.
However we did well with the Viscount and 111 and if you look at the "Tay Viscount" perhaps we had the basis for a 737 well before its time (just needed some sweepback).
The limiting factor will always be "your home market" be it military or commercial, without the numbers your sunk.
Concorde prooved we can do it but at what cost and at the expense of a domination of the wide body market by the USA.
By: Orion
- 28th May 2011 at 10:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My understanding is that there was a lot of research at Farnborough into transonic flight and one of the innovations they came up with was the low mounted flying tail, a feature of the M.52 and the Lightning. The men from the ministry didn't believe that this was necessary (neither did many people in the USA) and the low speed handling of an aeroplane with this type of tailplane was an issue. So the Shorts SB5 was designed to test out the theory. The concerns about low speed handling may well have been the public part of the reason why the M.52 was cancelled, especially as there was no way a pilot was going to get out of the aeroplane, certainly at low altitude and perhaps at all.
Another of my understandings is that the M.52 needed a afterburner to get through M1 but the aeroplane was too small to carry the extra fuel. This was the real reason why the M.52 was cancelled.
Another matter is the relationship between the USA and Britain. Since the late 30s Britain had used the USA as a major supplier of aeroplanes and there had been a constant two way flow in information and there was an assumption that this would continue into the post war era. This assumption has proved to be generally correct.
The reason why the M.52 and the X-1 look so similar is that they both look like a bullet. It has to be remembered that in 1944 or so the only human invention that had ever travelled beyond M1 was the bullet/shell. It made sense to use the shape of this as the starting point for research into transonic flight.
By: HarryMann
- 29th May 2011 at 00:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
At least the US didn't use UK-designed engines to kill UN personnel and shoot down aircraft (including Commonwealth) in Korea.
Yes, I don't think that was intended when the equivalent offer to the US was made. What happened subsequently could hardly be predicted. I seem to remember that the idea was to ensure that there was some sort of equivalence in technology transfer, east & West - but definitely regretted pretty quickly (we do suffer from strongly socialist govts from time to time ~ which tends to keeps us on our toes :rolleyes:)
By: pobjoy pete
- 29th May 2011 at 02:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aircomet-Meteor
P 178
The Bell Aircomet was the American equivalent of the Gloster E28/39 (a flying jet engine test bed so not really a comparison with the meteor).
The P80 Shooting Star was more of a comparison,but having been a late starter on the jet engine (which we gave to them) our friends across the pond soon "grasped the nettle" and found good uses for them.
The point i was making was that the shere size and scale of the American aviation Industry (and home market) was better placed to take advantage of the advances made during wartime expansion and also adapt technology we gave them and they obtained as spoils of war from Europe.
Its not so much who invents what as who makes the best use of what technology is available so you have it when needed not 10 years later.
By: Al
- 29th May 2011 at 03:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Most advances in US technology from WW2 to the 1950s was 'borrowed' from other nations, either as part of the Lease-Lend, or as war booty.
The UK simply handed them the jet engine, radar, code-breaking computers, and angled flight decks, while the swept wing, modern submarine and tank design, and rocketry was taken from captured German equipment.
They also had quite a hand in scuppering other nation's technological advances post war, like the Avro Arrow and TSR-2, by fiscal blackmail.
An interesting security fact - out of all the countries who spy on the UK, the US is still tops.
'Essential Relatioship' anyone?:rolleyes:
By: alertken
- 29th May 2011 at 09:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Al your post is arid. What matters is not the birth nationality of an originator, but the process by which the idea becomes a useable product. So, for example, Cambridge has more Nobel Prizes than all of Japan...who build/t things people can use. The notion of "ownership" of creativity is barren.
US, then copied by Japan, put resources into Production Engineering. UK did not. Example: n00 separate parts in a Beagle Pup door, vs. about 20 in a Cherokee. Irrelevant that Pup may have been in some obscure way "better": it was economically, practically inoperable.
By: dhfan
- 29th May 2011 at 14:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My understanding is that there was a lot of research at Farnborough into transonic flight and one of the innovations they came up with was the low mounted flying tail, a feature of the M.52 and the Lightning. The men from the ministry didn't believe that this was necessary (neither did many people in the USA) and the low speed handling of an aeroplane with this type of tailplane was an issue. So the Shorts SB5 was designed to test out the theory.
I'm pretty sure English Electric designed the low mounted tail for the Lightning and the SB5 was built because Farnborough/Ministry didn't believe it was the right place.
By: J Boyle
- 29th May 2011 at 17:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They also had quite a hand in scuppering other nation's technological advances post war, like the Avro Arrow...
Nonsense.:rolleyes:
The Avro arrow was killed by the advent of missiles (remember your own beloved Duncan Sandys?) ...by the late 50s the days of advanced manned interceptors were thought to be over.
The US and UK never built anything past the EE Lightning and F-106 (which was built in very small numbers against what was originally planned). IIRC, the MiG-25 was the only advanced interceptor built world wide. And that was a planned defense against the B-70 which was never fielded.
Canadian politicians sensed that and like their US and UK counterparts, killed off a costly program they thought was unnecessary. The Arrow was an interceptor plain and simple...without bombers to go after, it had no reason to exist.
But the CF-105 makes a good anti-American conspiracy theory...like the TSR-2 it was a "Wold beating wonder plane" that has grown larger in time. :D
By: Al
- 29th May 2011 at 20:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Al your post is arid. What matters is not the birth nationality of an originator, but the process by which the idea becomes a useable product.
Surely who came up with the idea first is the whole point of the thread - or have you missed something?
I would have thought the original creative spark was the most important phase of any innovative design - not how bigger national budgets can copy, modify, and eventually improve on the idea...
Posts: 419
By: DIGBY - 12th December 2007 at 17:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
didn't the Gladiator have an all moving tailplane
Posts: 8,505
By: mike currill - 13th December 2007 at 17:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the decision to try the flying tailplane was that Chuck Yeager had reported problems with pitch control from about m0.85 with the conventional tailplane/elevator setup. I think that was when Bell really started to take the flying tailplane seriously.Posts: 2
By: Zoe Brain - 19th September 2008 at 17:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Stories My Father Told Me
In 1943, my father was at Liverpool University, studying engineering. He wanted to build bridges, and due to timetabling constraints, the only way he could complete his degree in the time available was to take a course on supersonic fluid flow in steam turbines, in addition to his structures courses.
In 1944, with experience in both stress calculations and supersonic aerodynamics, he was assigned as an aerodynamicist and stress analyst for the wings of the Miles M52.
Back in the 60's, he told me about all the things that happened, including the Tall Story about the Miles Monitor, the one about the Boffin in the Back, as described in "Cat's Eyes" Cunningham's book.
They had severe problems with the cowlings, ones that hadn't appeared in the wind-tunnel tests. They kept on blowing off in flight.
A cramped compartment was built inside the Monitor prototype, with a small sideways-looking mirror and camera. He went inside, and all he could see was the cowling.
Would the cowling blow off? Not on your Dame Nelly Melba. So he asked the pilot (Don Brown?) to do some aerobatics, to try to trigger the condition. Still no joy. Finally, he asked the pilot to pull out all the stops, and the Monitor was put through aerobatics so violent, and g-forces so strong, that observers on the ground blanched. My father could see nothing of this, his view was just a small porthole, a few inches in diameter, the cowling blocking his view. Now this time the cowling vibrated, shuddered, and looked as if it was loosening. Just a bit more was all that was needed.
It is not true that he said "I say pilot, could you do that again, only a bit faster?" as the Tall Tale would have it. He was from Derbyshire, not the Home Counties. But the sentiment was the same.
When he later saw the films of the most spectacular and dangerous aerial display ever seen over Woodley, in an aircraft he was in, he fainted.
I also remember him telling me of the events in 1946. All the technical drawings, all the calculations, even the analogue computer he'd invented to make the calculations quicker, all were put in a set of Tea Chests, marked to be consigned to Bell Aircraft in the USA. According to him, the wings were fully constructed, each "cell" with a different vibration frequency to avoid flutter during transonic conditions, and the first airframe perhaps 80% complete. The afterburning engine had just been tested to 100% power, but the escape capsule was iffy. They had German POWs from RAE with Me262/Me163 experience begging for a chance to fly it, no matter what the risk.
All the stories that have become popularly known in the 80's and later were told to me some 15 years earlier.
My father died in 1993, and I miss him terribly.
I'm recording this for my son, Andrew, who he never got a chance to meet.
Posts: 5,953
By: avion ancien - 19th September 2008 at 18:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oooooo - is this Pandora out of the box again!
Posts: 3,614
By: Bager1968 - 24th May 2009 at 21:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aside from all the examples of earlier aircraft with "all-moving tailplanes", the Curtis XP-42 also flew with a one-piece, "all-flying" horizontal stabilizer well before the Miles M52 data ever went to the US.
The XP-42 was the 4th production P-36A, delivered in March 1939 with a number of modifications for better streamlining.
It was fitted with the "all-flying" horizontal stabilizer in 1942, and used to gather data on the aerodynamics of that configuration.
It was later cannibalized for parts, and scrapped in 1947.
The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA)* was the governmental agency tasked with undertaking, promoting, and institutionalizing aeronautical research. Founded in 1915, NACA was involved in all experimental aerodynamics research by not only the government, but the private companies... so NACA would have been involved in the XP-42 testing.
NACA was also a major part of the X-1 program... so they already had the basics of the idea well before the Miles data was transferred.
Whether the Curtis data, or the Miles data, was more important... or whether either played any part at all, is nearly impossible to tell without someone digging into the X-1 program records.
* became NASA in 1958
Posts: 126
By: Brian Doherty - 24th May 2009 at 23:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is there anything about the M52 in the book 'Wings Over Woodly', I read it a number of years ago but somebody has nicked my copy and my memory is not that good.
Cheers Brian.;)
Posts: 1,707
By: longshot - 28th May 2009 at 18:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wings over Woodley
Brian....I read a library copy a few months ago and I'm pretty sure there's a page or two with pics of the M-52. Public library is probably the best way to get it....Wings over Woodley is almost as hard to buy as the Miles Putnam. The blockbuster Air Britain Miles book (Volume I) is out now but think the M-52 won't appear till VolIII.
I think the M-52 should have been completed and flown (suck it and see?) but the X-1 programme had 3 features that were better thought out than the M-52....
1) it was dropped from a carrier 7-8 miles up
2) it was rocket powered....no air intake design problems
3) a glide landing to a generous desert runway perhaps simplified recovery
Posts: 2
By: HarryMann - 28th May 2011 at 01:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1,2 and 3 hardly qualify it as the first aircraft to exceed Mach 1 then... more like an air launched missile with little ability to maneouvre to a landing either :)
==============
For those saying the Brits are just whinging about stolen technology...
The first fuel-flow altitude correction capsule used on the early RR Derwents, was designed by Ricardos. We gave the US (and controversially Russia) some of these as Gas Turbine examples. Sir Harry Ricardo apparently was interested to see a year or two later a patent applied for such a device - with his very drawing for that part being used to support it... by G.E.
Posts: 9,871
By: J Boyle - 28th May 2011 at 02:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I thought aircraft was anything that flies.
Helicopter, balloon, air launched are all aircraft.
You can certainly claim the X-1 was not a self-launching airplane, but that's about all. Parts 2 & 3 also apply to the Me-163 and I don't hear anyone NOT calling the Komet an airplane.
At least the US didn't use UK-designed engines to kill UN personnel and shoot down aircraft (including Commonwealth) in Korea. :)
Posts: 887
By: alertken - 28th May 2011 at 09:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
JB: UK-designed engines to kill UN personnel. Unintended consequences. Seemed a good idea at the time.
In Sept.1946:
- UK had just negotiated its US Reconstruction Loan, by which £ was to become convertible 7/47. We feared its collapse (which did occur).
- Truman intended to withdraw all GIs from Europe before the 1948 Presidential Election.
- Uncle Joe had won the War for us and was our friend.
- UK was very cold and broke. We were onway to quitting India; we were trying to implement the promises made in Dec.1942 that our people, then being bombed and killed, would this time have a land fit for heroes to live in. But no-one wanted our £: how would we eat?
So we did 2 things. Bartered lots of aeroplanes with fascist Peron, for his meat (no battery chickens then). He did not "buy" Meteors &tc. And Attlee told the President of the Board of Trade, ex-MAP Cripps, to do the same with Uncle Joe: Ukrainian wheat for...what did we have that he might want? Ah, centrifugal turbojets no more advanced than booty he already had.
So Oct.,1946 we bartered 10 (later,30) Derwent (to become RD-500)/10 (later,25) Nene (to become RD-45 & VK-1). Stalin could have based LaGG-15, MiG-15 on axial Jumo 004/RD.10 and endured low longevity.
But Stalin strutted and things turned sour. US and UK felt they had tried hard to help our valiant Ally emerge from ghastly Barbarossa, but Truman became "tired of babying the Soviets". Marshall Aid, Berlin Blockade, NATO, Warsaw Pact, the Cold and hot Korean Wars followed.
If "fault", then it was collective failure of comprehension. We thought he was seeking World Domination; he feared we intended to revive Germany and point her East.
Posts: 274
By: pobjoy pete - 28th May 2011 at 09:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This could lead to a discussion re the Cessna 172 v Beagle Airdale,
Comet v 707, Trident v 727, Hunter v Sabre.
However we did well with the Viscount and 111 and if you look at the "Tay Viscount" perhaps we had the basis for a 737 well before its time (just needed some sweepback).
The limiting factor will always be "your home market" be it military or commercial, without the numbers your sunk.
Concorde prooved we can do it but at what cost and at the expense of a domination of the wide body market by the USA.
Posts: 2,841
By: paul178 - 28th May 2011 at 10:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
pobjoy pete,
How about the Bell P-59 Airacomet v Gloster Meteor then?
Posts: 699
By: Orion - 28th May 2011 at 10:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My understanding is that there was a lot of research at Farnborough into transonic flight and one of the innovations they came up with was the low mounted flying tail, a feature of the M.52 and the Lightning. The men from the ministry didn't believe that this was necessary (neither did many people in the USA) and the low speed handling of an aeroplane with this type of tailplane was an issue. So the Shorts SB5 was designed to test out the theory. The concerns about low speed handling may well have been the public part of the reason why the M.52 was cancelled, especially as there was no way a pilot was going to get out of the aeroplane, certainly at low altitude and perhaps at all.
Another of my understandings is that the M.52 needed a afterburner to get through M1 but the aeroplane was too small to carry the extra fuel. This was the real reason why the M.52 was cancelled.
Another matter is the relationship between the USA and Britain. Since the late 30s Britain had used the USA as a major supplier of aeroplanes and there had been a constant two way flow in information and there was an assumption that this would continue into the post war era. This assumption has proved to be generally correct.
The reason why the M.52 and the X-1 look so similar is that they both look like a bullet. It has to be remembered that in 1944 or so the only human invention that had ever travelled beyond M1 was the bullet/shell. It made sense to use the shape of this as the starting point for research into transonic flight.
Regards
Posts: 2
By: HarryMann - 29th May 2011 at 00:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, I don't think that was intended when the equivalent offer to the US was made. What happened subsequently could hardly be predicted. I seem to remember that the idea was to ensure that there was some sort of equivalence in technology transfer, east & West - but definitely regretted pretty quickly (we do suffer from strongly socialist govts from time to time ~ which tends to keeps us on our toes :rolleyes:)
Posts: 274
By: pobjoy pete - 29th May 2011 at 02:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Aircomet-Meteor
P 178
The Bell Aircomet was the American equivalent of the Gloster E28/39 (a flying jet engine test bed so not really a comparison with the meteor).
The P80 Shooting Star was more of a comparison,but having been a late starter on the jet engine (which we gave to them) our friends across the pond soon "grasped the nettle" and found good uses for them.
The point i was making was that the shere size and scale of the American aviation Industry (and home market) was better placed to take advantage of the advances made during wartime expansion and also adapt technology we gave them and they obtained as spoils of war from Europe.
Its not so much who invents what as who makes the best use of what technology is available so you have it when needed not 10 years later.
Posts: 1,190
By: Al - 29th May 2011 at 03:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Most advances in US technology from WW2 to the 1950s was 'borrowed' from other nations, either as part of the Lease-Lend, or as war booty.
The UK simply handed them the jet engine, radar, code-breaking computers, and angled flight decks, while the swept wing, modern submarine and tank design, and rocketry was taken from captured German equipment.
They also had quite a hand in scuppering other nation's technological advances post war, like the Avro Arrow and TSR-2, by fiscal blackmail.
An interesting security fact - out of all the countries who spy on the UK, the US is still tops.
'Essential Relatioship' anyone?:rolleyes:
Posts: 887
By: alertken - 29th May 2011 at 09:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Al your post is arid. What matters is not the birth nationality of an originator, but the process by which the idea becomes a useable product. So, for example, Cambridge has more Nobel Prizes than all of Japan...who build/t things people can use. The notion of "ownership" of creativity is barren.
US, then copied by Japan, put resources into Production Engineering. UK did not. Example: n00 separate parts in a Beagle Pup door, vs. about 20 in a Cherokee. Irrelevant that Pup may have been in some obscure way "better": it was economically, practically inoperable.
Posts: 2,915
By: dhfan - 29th May 2011 at 14:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm pretty sure English Electric designed the low mounted tail for the Lightning and the SB5 was built because Farnborough/Ministry didn't believe it was the right place.
Posts: 9,871
By: J Boyle - 29th May 2011 at 17:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nonsense.:rolleyes:
The Avro arrow was killed by the advent of missiles (remember your own beloved Duncan Sandys?) ...by the late 50s the days of advanced manned interceptors were thought to be over.
The US and UK never built anything past the EE Lightning and F-106 (which was built in very small numbers against what was originally planned). IIRC, the MiG-25 was the only advanced interceptor built world wide. And that was a planned defense against the B-70 which was never fielded.
Canadian politicians sensed that and like their US and UK counterparts, killed off a costly program they thought was unnecessary. The Arrow was an interceptor plain and simple...without bombers to go after, it had no reason to exist.
But the CF-105 makes a good anti-American conspiracy theory...like the TSR-2 it was a "Wold beating wonder plane" that has grown larger in time. :D
Posts: 1,190
By: Al - 29th May 2011 at 20:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Surely who came up with the idea first is the whole point of the thread - or have you missed something?
I would have thought the original creative spark was the most important phase of any innovative design - not how bigger national budgets can copy, modify, and eventually improve on the idea...