Miles M.52 transonic research aircraft

Given what happened to British aviation, did it loose anything by the M52 not flying?

In practical terms, perhaps it would have given an impetus to achieving supersonic speeds generally. Would probably have given us the world speed record for a time. However as Fairey found out, just being the fastest isn't much of a reward.

I was roundly abused by a senior US aircraft historian for raising the issue of how much the X-1 owed to the M.52... but the thin biconvex wing, mid-set on a bullet-shaped body, and the variable incidence tail (traced to lessons from Spitfire IX transonic dive tests) were on the M.52 when it was briefed to NACA in early 1944, before such features turn up on any known US design.

did it 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.

Question about Miles M.52 with two tail fins ?

Hi,

in an archive movie about sound barrier,I saw the Miles M.52
with two tail fins,in just a moment,but that make me confuse,
was there any earlier model to Miles M.52 with twin tail fin ?.

There are a couple of interesting videos on the M.52:

1. This clip is from episode 4 of the BBC series 'Speed' (http://knowledge.preview.bbcchannels.com/za/programmes/speed/episodes/).

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUqjcJ5itfQ&feature=player_embedded (as posted here)

I know there must have been a purpose for creating separate topics on the M.52, but we currently have no less than THREE topics running on the subject and it's kind of complicated to follow... The topic on the book must remain in the "Bookshelf" section, but I believe this here topic has nothing to do in "Aerospace" and must therefore be merged with the one in "Early Projects".

Re: Question about Miles M.52 with two tail fins ?

Hi,
They thought of Delta wing version but time issues made them drop that avenue, that was taken up by Convair.
There must have been a version before the the swept wing canard Miles supersonic Airliner?

hesham said:

Hi,

in an archive movie about sound barrier,I saw the Miles M.52
with two tail fins,in just a moment,but that make me confuse,
was there any earlier model to Miles M.52 with twin tail fin ?.

Click to expand...

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/

Tony Buttler authored a most excellent book on the M.52 and all the goings on before, during and after the program. Well worth adding to one's library.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Hi!
http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Crafts/Craft21905.htm
"The salient features of the Miles M.52 transonic research aircraft can be determined from this view of one of the makers' stainless steel scale models used for wind tunnel testing. The development of this potentially pivotal project was launched in November 1943 to Ministry of Supply Specification E.24143, the project being cancelled in February 1946. As an aircraft, the M.52 embodied a number of innovative features, along with some that were forced upon the designers by the technological limitations of the time. Among the novelties was the use of an all flying, or slab, tailplane. Another feature of interest was the unswept, thin, bi-convex airfoil wing, later to appear on Bell's XS-I, later X-l, Douglas's X-3 and Lockheed's F-104 Starfighter. Some of the impositions brought about the use of a an extremely confining cockpit-cum-escape capsule, foreshadowing that used on the Bell X-2. Besides providing the pilots with poor forward visibility, there is a very real question as to whether the capsule would have cleared the aircraft cleanly in the case of a high speed emergency. The fuselage-mounted, narrow track landing gear, necessitated by the thin wing, was another item most pilots would have preferred to do without. Power for the M.52 was to have been provided by a 2,000lb s.t. Whittle W.21700, boosted to 3,175lb s.t. with afterburning; whether this would have provided sufficient impulse to allow the aircraft to approach the critical Mach No. of 1.5 at 30,000 feet, or 1,002mph, seems doubtful, explaining why Miles were already planning a 6,500lb s.t. Rolls-Royce A.J. 65, later Avon, powered version. This raises another conundrum - did the 2.500lb overload fuel capacity of the M.52 allow a conventional take-off, climb to around 40,000 feet, a shallow reheat-power dive and retrieval to base? The one fact that does emerge is that on 9 October 1948, a joint Vickers-RAE rocket-powered 3/10th-scale fully instrumented model of the M.52 was launched from a DH Mosquito flying at 35.500 feet and achieved Mach 1.38, or 911mph in straight and level flight. This event proved that Miles had, at least, got their aerodynamics right."

Hi!
https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/miles-aircraft.49788/page-3
https://translate.google.com/transl...ntalnogo-samoleta-miles-m-52-velikobritaniya/

Hi! Wind tunnel test model.

Hi! Mockup pictures.

Hi! Art work.
https://www.key.aero/article/race-mach-1

Hi!
https://web.ipmsusa3.org/content/miles-m52-britain-s-top-secret-supersonic-research-aircraft

If it had flown as wanted, would the unswept wing have led to incorrect theories?

blackkite said:

Hi! Art work.
https://www.key.aero/article/race-mach-1

Click to expand...

Excellent book - well worth adding to one's personal library....

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Why I saw in later period,a double thread for the same subject ? ;

Merged

PMN1 said:

If it had flown as wanted, would the unswept wing have led to incorrect theories?

Click to expand...

I doubt it. The Bell X-1 also had thin, straight wings.

Excellent book

Hi!
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/bell-x-1/nasm_A19510007000

A good artist drawing,

iverson said:

PMN1 said:

If it had flown as wanted, would the unswept wing have led to incorrect theories?

Click to expand...

I doubt it. The Bell X-1 also had thin, straight wings.

Click to expand...

The Glushko thrust over aerodynamics school...I love it for that

publiusr said:

iverson said:

PMN1 said:

If it had flown as wanted, would the unswept wing have led to incorrect theories?

Click to expand...

I doubt it. The Bell X-1 also had thin, straight wings.

Click to expand...

The Glushko thrust over aerodynamics school...I love it for that

Click to expand...

I cannot claim to be an aerodynamicist, but I think that "thinness"--defined as low thickness-to-chord ratio--and thus lower drag is the secret here, not simply raw power.

Both straight and swept/delta wings can be thin in this sense--witness the wings on the successful X-1, F-104, Mirage III, and F-100.

Straight supersonic wings have to be very thin because the aerodynamic chord--the distance between leading and trailing edges when measured parallel to the fuselage center line--is equal to the shortest distance between the leading and trailing edges. Designing a straight wing that is thin enough and still stiff enough to be practical is not easy, hence the radically short span of the F-104.

A swept or delta wing can be physically thicker--and thus stiffer and structurally more sound--and have more area and longer span than a straight wing of equal performance because its aerodynamic chord is significantly longer than the shortest distance between the leading and trailing edges.

Yet Faget seemed to think he could get away with a straight wing shuttle…

There is an interesting oral history from Dennis Bancroft available to listen to on the Imperial War Musem website (recorded in 1997):

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80016736

Some very interesting bits in there that I didn't think have been covered elsewhere in print - discussions about hydraulic intake ramps, fuel in the wings etc.

Possible an amount of salt required