The Miles M.52: Gateway to Supersonic Flight by Eric Brown

overscan (PaulMM)

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
27 December 2005
Messages
16,946
Reaction score
21,905
Hardcover: 224 pages
  • Publisher: The History Press Ltd (1 Mar 2012)
  • ISBN-10: 0752470140
  • ISBN-13: 978-0752470146
  • In December 1943, a top secret contract (E.24/43) was awarded to Miles Aircraft. The contract was to build the world's first supersonic jet capable of 1000mph. The only reliable source of data on supersonic objects came from the Armament Research Dept and their wind tunnel tests on ammunition. From this, Miles developed an exceptionally thin-winged bullet shaped aircraft. The research was inexplicably passed to the Americans in 1944. By December 1945, one prototype was virtually complete. The second, destined for an attempt at the sound barrier was 80 per cent complete. In February 1946, Capt Eric Brown was confirmed as the test pilot and October 1946 was set for the supersonic trials. However, on 12 February 1946, Miles were ordered to stop production. No plausible explanation was given for the cancellation when Britain was within six months of breaking the sound barrier. Eric Brown and others directly involved including Dennis Bancroft, the Chief Aerodynamicist on the M.52, have now come together to try and finally solve the mystery behind the cancellation.
 

Attachments

  • 51+1rqlfj4L._SS500_.jpg
    51+1rqlfj4L._SS500_.jpg
    42.7 KB · Views: 835
Sounds like must reading!

Hope the author clarifies the Bell X-1 connection. Some sources claim that the British government handed over all M.52 data to Bell Aircraft for use on the XS-1 program, but it seems that the X-1 design was already frozen when the M.52 was cancelled and didn't need the M.52 data...
 
Hi,
I have discussed the M52 both with Eric and Dennis and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the influence was real.
There were up to six anonymous Americans present at the UK Supersonic Committee Meetings from 1943 and not one member of the Miles Design Team was allowed to be present.

In recent years I have seen documents concerning the M52 that were subsequently purged after I first saw them at the PRO Kew and talked about them on the phone...

The influence of the Miles work was greater than most people think. Look at the Convair XF-92 with its delta wing and its cross section and remember the two alternatives discussed by the Miles team in 1943 were for a Delta wing form and the one that was selected. They understood the value of swept wing was in transonic flight and not important for 1,000mph flight.

Whittle suggested a supersonic bi-plane but that was not seriously considered by the team. I have copy of a type written very detailed report by Bancroft on the Aircraft and it makes one weep when one understands the effort put in.
I am looking forward to reading the book when I can get hold of a copy...


Stargazer2006 said:
Sounds like must reading!

Hope the author clarifies the Bell X-1 connection. Some sources claim that the British government handed over all M.52 data to Bell Aircraft for use on the XS-1 program, but it seems that the X-1 design was already frozen when the M.52 was cancelled and didn't need the M.52 data...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks a lot for your answer, Spark! Were you personally involved in making this book?
 
Sorry, not involved. But have had an interest in the subject for over fifty years.
You now know why I am reluctant sometimes to give references on line to sources,
Having had some unknown “agency” remove material one has read and when complaining to be told “…but, sir you were the last person to use it”
This was after I had discussed the said material on the phone with three people who I trust. One was Dennis Bancroft, the second was a key member of the HOTOL design team, and the third was a BROHP historian. Running out of time!more next time!
Stargazer2006 said:
Thanks a lot for your answer, Spark! Were you personally involved in making this book?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was responsible for this title and argued for its commission at The History Press in late 2010/early 2011. Despite my battle in getting this great book printed, I am extremely proud of this title and working with the delightful Capt. Eric Brown and Simon at Blacker Design. I do wonder that The History Press plan to do with it, however, considering their lack of knowledge in this area...
Jay
 
Spark said:
Hi,
I have discussed the M52 both with Eric and Dennis and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the influence was real.
There were up to six anonymous Americans present at the UK Supersonic Committee Meetings from 1943 and not one member of the Miles Design Team was allowed to be present.
In recent years I have seen documents concerning the M52 that were subsequently purged after I first saw them at the PRO Kew and talked about them on the phone...
The influence of the Miles work was greater than most people think.
Look at the Convair XF-92 with its delta wing and its cross section and remember the two alternatives discussed by the Miles team in 1943 were for a Delta wing form and the one that was selected. They understood the value of swept wing was in transonic flight and not important for 1,000mph flight.
Whittle suggested a supersonic bi-plane but that was not seriously considered by the team.
I have copy of a type written very detailed report by Bancroft on the Aircraft and it makes one weep when one understands the effort put in.
I am looking forward to reading the book when I can get hold of a copy...


Stargazer2006 said:
Sounds like must reading!

Hope the author clarifies the Bell X-1 connection. Some sources claim that the British government handed over all M.52 data to Bell Aircraft for use on the XS-1 program, but it seems that the X-1 design was already frozen when the M.52 was cancelled and didn't need the M.52 data...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I haven't read the book and maybe shouldn't comment, but what are the great similarities between the X-1 and M.52 that demonstrate this influence? As far as I can see, the similarities amount to:
- jet powered (if a rocket is a subset of the jet family)
- pointy
- thin, straight wings
It seems to me that anyone building a aircraft to explore supersonic flight in the mid-40's would use the same formula. Introducing unknowns like swept or delta wings into the mix would add unwanted complication and risk. I think the differences are more significant:
- rocket vs turbojet power
- normal takeoff vs air-launch
- stylish orange paint vs the unkempt look

taildragger
 
The controversial item is the all-moving tailplane: an innovation tested by Miles and planned for the M.52 as part of the solution to high-speed compressibility effects. The Americans typically claim that Bell came up with it on their own, and the Brits claim that Bell copied the design from Miles.
 
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3092.msg24932.html#msg24932

did (UK) lose anything by the M52 not flying? No.

Oct.1943: In their industry walkabouts Minister Cripps and Lady Isobel got round to the minnow of Reading and found 2 assets: a can-do attitude (a quote has the sense "fantastic solutions/incredible ideas": M-wings, X-wings - all that is why the Miles Putnam has high value, and is to be re-done by Air-Britain)...and Blossom Miles, who invented Girl-Power in aviation. "What can we do with (her)?" he asked his Chief Executive Sir Wilfrid Freeman, who humoured his boss (and the boss' wife) with: test bed for Whittle's W2/700 and for Miles' razor (Gillette) wing. ("Got away lightly", he thought: when the Crippses lunched at Weybridge the bill had been 300 Windsors).
Feb.1946: (at risk of repetition) UK broke and at peace. MAP rationing turbine activity in hope something might pass a civil Type Test for Brabazon Committee Types: earning, not consuming money. Miles dilatory on (Brabazon VB) M.60 Marathon, formed in an alien material: RAE/Morien Morgan quote: Miles were "very good at biffing out small cardboard aeroplanes, but..." yet UK relied on them for the DC-3 replacement. Facing a Miles demand for more money, MAP judged they would not produce M.52 research vehicle soon, and that no one wanted it, or its engine. RAF was not clear that thirsty turbines had military value for our modest Tasks. Razor wings have a payload issue, which sent X-1 down a dead end. Such limited value as F-104G delivered was by J79 super-grunt, from 1961.

MAP's Sir Ben Lockspeiser came up with the supersonic hazard line, both to protect Miles' business credibility on M.60, and to shelter Cabinet Minister Cripps from blame for MAP Cripps' squander. If MAP had trickled on, Miles would still have expired in November,1947, still blaming the weather, M.52 probably a glider, void of novel vendor items. Their prime revenue source had become Biro ball pens.

An open issue is the flying tail, which septic-bashers have as siphoned (as an idea, not as hardware) to F-86. This required complex actuators. I question UK vendors' ability, or urge, to produce a one-off diversion. I don't know which fine team had this job on M.52.
 
Last edited:
The XS-1 didn't have an "all-moving tail", it had an inflight trim-able horizontal stabilizer with conventional elevators.
Trim-able stabilizers had been around for yonks, the main difference on the XS-1 was that it was motorized and quickly adjustable in flight.
If anyone should get credit for the once-piece all-moving tail, horizontal and vertical, it's Rheinhold Platz on the Fokker V-1 and V-2.


Anyhow an all-moving 'slab' horizontal control surface was tested on the XP-42 in 1945:
1017px-Curtiss_XP-42_in_flight_1945.jpg
 
The NACA report on these tail tests:

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/report.php?NID=2418
 

Attachments

  • XP-42 NACA.jpg
    XP-42 NACA.jpg
    164.1 KB · Views: 326
  • XP-42 tail NACA.jpg
    XP-42 tail NACA.jpg
    150.9 KB · Views: 342
A second report can be found here:

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/report.php?NID=3130
 
I've just finished reading this book. Eric Brown and Dennis Bancroft were intimately involved in the M.52 programme, so it's no surprise that it's a thorough account of the programme and a decent analysis of its cancellation. The surprise was how good a writer Brown is. This is one of the best-written aviation books I've read in years. Brown has struck an excellent balance between giving lots of information and writing an engaging tale.

There are lots of photos (b&w only though), and a couple of drawings including a reproduction of an original Miles general arrangement drawing /3-view. The appendices contain some of the important documents in the project's demise, plus a detailed timeline of the project.

I think this qualifies as the definitive book on the M.52, and I can recommend it without reservation to anyone wanting to know more about the M.52, the state of supersonic research in Britain 1936-1950, the demise of Power Jets Ltd. and the W.2/700 engine.

As for the Bell X-1: The first visit by USAAF, NACA and Bell representatives was in 1944. A return visit by Miles personnel was promised, but reneged on by the Pentagon a couple of weeks later. In 1945 the Americans announced the start of its own supersonic programme and awarded a contract to Bell for the X-1.
In 1946, a second visit to Miles by US military personnel took place.
In 1947 during initial flight testing of the X-1, pilot Yeager lost longitudinal control at Mach 0.94. Bell responded by changing the tailplane trim system: they added a switch so the pilot could choose between two incidence angles in flight, creating a crude version of the all-moving tailplane they had witnessed in 1944.
 
s4477: tks for this link. Who on earth found footage of the Gillette Falcon in flight!

Text must, I suppose, be sensationalistic, to attract a broadcaster. You do know, don't you, that the conspiracy is nonsense?
- "Somehow" US became aware of M.52. We told them. Just like they told us what was in the R&D pipeline. Allies. War.
 
alertken said:
Text must, I suppose, be sensationalistic, to attract a broadcaster.
Click to expand...

It was more than just the text that was sensationalistic. At about the 9:05 mark:
"By 1946 we had reached about 80% completion of the aeroplane, and it would have flown supersonically in about three months time."

An untested aircraft of an entirely new type. You haven't even finished building the damned thing, and you are certain that it will successfully fly faster than the speed of sound in three months.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

9:45 "Cancellation of the M52 was without doubt the most catastrophic event in the annals of British aviation."

More catastrophic than the infamous White Paper or the nationalisation of the formerly great British aerospace industry?

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the M52 is more a delusional fever dream of lost empire than a serious engineering effort.
 
I have to say I don't subscribe to the grand America-as-baddy theories that pop up so often in British aviation history. I think they just tended to make less mistakes, or at least produce more good stuff to balance out the rubbish.


Eric Brown has always been a good writer and all his books are worth reading. I found this one a little bit disappointing to be honest (though still a must-read if you are interested in the subject) - too much concentration on the 'why was it cancelled' "mystery" at the expense of more detailed material on the aircraft itself (though I acknowledge much material has been lost). The depressing thing is the various theories put forward have the slimmest of evidence to back them up and the appendices which actually have the text of some of the relevant memos and meeting minutes are all pretty clear. Too expensive. Too expensive. Too expensive. That's it, end of story.
 
DamienB said:
The depressing thing is the various theories put forward have the slimmest of evidence to back them up and the appendices which actually have the text of some of the relevant memos and meeting minutes are all pretty clear. Too expensive. Too expensive. Too expensive. That's it, end of story.
Click to expand...

I think that pretty much sums it up, and the truth is also buried in the hyperbole of the linked documentary, it was a wartime project which made perfect sense whilst Britain was spending over 50% of GDP on defence, and related activities, but as the budget collapsed from £4,410m in 1945/46 to £741m by 1949/50 (it was £1,653m in 1946/47) projects like this began to look considerably less necessary. Kew, and this forum, is littered with R&D projects that either died or were scaled back in that period. In a time of cuts the M.52 would also have been an obvious target; with one airframe under construction but still well away from a first flight, let alone achieving the programmes goals, it was a project that would have still had a lot of expenditure ahead of it. Indeed one book (Barry Jone's 'British Experimental Turbojet Aircraft') states that at cancellation the project had cost £75,000 but would have cost another £250,000 to get it to its flight test stage; in short, sunk cost was small compared to the planned forward expenditure so cancelling it would relieve upward pressure on the overall budget. I think the explanations relating to pilot safety just speak more generally to part of the wider cost calculation, as Orionblamblam says the type was untried and highly experimental meaning potential results were unpredictable, the German swept wing research and any difficulties with Frank Whittle would have further compounded doubts about the merit of the project in the context of its cost. So to summarise, in 1946 the M.52 was a high-risk programme that required substantial forward expenditure (but had comparatively small sunk costs) in a year in which aerospace and defence spending was falling of a cliff.

However, I think there is no doubt that it was a serious engineering effort, the 80% completed aircraft, the Spitfire and Miles M.3 used for tail and wing testing respectively and the constructed W.2/700 engines all point to that.
 
JFC Fuller said:
it was a wartime project which made perfect sense whilst Britain was spending over 50% of GDP on defence
Click to expand...

And when it was cancelled it was already obsolete. The X-1 was obsolete before it flew. When the X-1 flew, everybody knew that the future of high speed flight was goign to be jet engines, not rockets; swept wings, not straight. When the M52 was cancelled, the straight wings were obsolete, and the Whittle jet engine was looking pretty tragic compared to German axial flow designs.

Could the M52 have flown supersonically? Probably. Would it have gained anybody much? Apart from prestige, probably not much. Given that the war had broken Britain, both economically and culturally, spending large sums ona dead end probably looked pretty silly. The US had the kind of money to throw around on technological dead ends; Britain, on the other hand, was in a state of rapid retreat. When, in the early 1950's, JRR Tolkein went to his publisher with "Lord of the Rings," they couldn't print the whole thing as a single volume because the Brits couldn't afford the *paper.*


However, I think there is no doubt that it was a serious engineering effort,
Click to expand...

At the time it was. But today it has transmutated into a myth. "If only the M.52 had been allowed to fly, today the Federation of Britain would dominate the world and The Fall would provide rapid transport to The Colony."
 
I take the view that until Polaris was selected as the deterrent, Empire withdrawn from and the RAF's role better defined ie by the mid-Sixties, there was no clear way forward. No sooner had a requirement been issued than it was out of date eg OR.330 and OR.329/F.155 both eclipsed by the ballistic missile. Wearing Gunstonian rosy-tinted spectacles while reading material written before the archives were opened leads to designs being identified as "cool" and "awesome" and therefore deemed to be cancelled in error. This avoids the fact that there was a threat, often poorly defined, to be countered and limited resources to do so. But I spend too much time in archives.

Chris
 
I gather the engine had a novel form of afterburner - how far did they get with it, and would it have worked?
 
'Winkle' Brown is IMO an excellent writer - I've read his "Wings of the Weird and Wonderful" books, and found his style very accessible and informative.


I can understand him taking the line that this is one of those things which really should have been built, given that he was the one who'd been tipped to fly it!

"If only the M.52 had been allowed to fly, today the Federation of Britain would dominate the world and The Fall would provide rapid transport to The Colony."

The nation which stops doing basic boundary-pushing research is doomed to stagnation. The argument we can have until the end of time is whether this is the cause or merely a symptom. I think in part it's both, but IMO when you take your eyes off the far horizon you've stopped doing yourself favours. "All of us are in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars," etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi CHN

At FAST they have a film of the engine undergoing ground tests.

spark

CNH said:
I gather the engine had a novel form of afterburner - how far did they get with it, and would it have worked?
Click to expand...
 
It was plenum chamber burning, as revived for BS.100 for P.1154.

W.2/700, like M.52, like 300 Vickers Windsor, like 4 Malta carriers, like...like...was discontinued because we had just won the War and had neither enemy nor money.

The "scandal" would have been to persevere with any of those things when we were unable to buy food for our heroes.
 
JFC Fuller said:
Britain's industrial decline was self-induced, the product of a state and a people focussing on health, welfare, job security and their "place in the world" over and above science, technology, industry and enterprise and allowing the former category to strangle the latter. In many ways its a miracle that the UK still has the aerospace industry is does.
Click to expand...

The US is currently working hard to replicate this feat.
 
Very interesting thread, gents (except the bits when some members indulge in political digressions of course...).
 
I have now read it. A cornucopia of conspiracies. Brown in print (and on the TV prog) is surely right on the non-visit by Miles to NACA: that US had nothing to offer. The book gives a brief para. to the view of folk (in the Miles Aircraft Collection...is that the Museum of Berkshire Aviation, Woodley?): money, National dearth of.
 
Here's an interesting clip on youtube featuring both Eric Brown and Designer Dennis Bancroft discussing the aircraft

(Edit : For the video link see # 17)
 
:cool:
Hi folks,
probably your podcast app noticed this episode last week.
Audio: Classic Lecture Series - The Miles M.52 project by Mike Hirst

Miles 1940s supersonic aircraft project could have been the first aircraft to break the sound barrier. Though the project was championed by Sir Frank Whittle, who worked with Miles to supply the engine, and was supported by the scientists at the RAE in Farnborough. However, the reasons surrounding the UK Government's secretive cancellation of the project has long been a mystery.

In this lecture to the Royal Aeronautical Society's Historical Group, Mike Hirst explores the technical and political sides of the project, from its inception in 1943 to its cancellation in 1948. His lecture is followed by a discussion by many of the people who were there at the time, including from Miles Aircraft, the Ministry, the RAE and the project's test pilot, Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown.

The lecture took place on 4 November 2004. The podcast was edited by Mike Stanberry FRAeS and it was digitised thanks to a grant from the Royal Aeronautical Society Foundation.

National Aerospace Library
23 August 2019
Click to expand...
Link: https://www.aerosociety.com/news/audio-classic-lecture-series-the-miles-m52-project-by-mike-hirst/
 
Spark said:
Sorry, not involved. But have had an interest in the subject for over fifty years.
You now know why I am reluctant sometimes to give references on line to sources,
Having had some unknown “agency” remove material one has read and when complaining to be told “…but, sir you were the last person to use it”.
This was after I had discussed the said material on the phone with three people who I trust. One was Dennis Bancroft, the second was a key member of the HOTOL design team, and the third was a BROHP historian. Running out of time!more next time!

Stargazer2006 said:
Thanks a lot for your answer, Spark! Were you personally involved in making this book?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This is why bringing a decent digital camera with you is so important (assuming this is permitted)... photograph it in place and prove it was there and stayed there.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom