Miles Tandem Wing Projects

[hesham]

Hi,

I found this Miles tandem wing monoplane project,can anybody
identify it ?.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1944/1944%20-%200910.html

 

[Justo Miranda]

Is a Miles "Libelula" 1942 Fleet Fighter Proposal
See Air Enthusiast FIVE

 

[Jemiba]

As an aerodynamical testbed for this fighter, Miles built the M.35, about half the size
of what would have been the real machine ( Anyone who has a type number ?).
"Libellula" was the name, given to the whole concept of the tandem wing, I think.
The M.39B was a manned flying model, too, testing the layout for the M.39 for
the B.11/41 specification.

 

[Wingknut]

Hi,
This next might be redundant in view of Justo's reference but I think the mystery Libellula is a Miles M-43, a tandem-wing (fleet?) fighter, designed to spec. F6/42. I found a Miles project site, which I can't currently locate, but the 'Unusual British Aircraft' site (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/4082/brit/odd_air.htm) says:
"The Boulton Paul P99 submitted against specification F6/42 for a single seat fighter. Also submitted for consideration against F6/42 were the.
* Boulton Paul P100
* Hawker Tempest types P1018, P1019 & P1020
* Folland Fo117
* Miles M42, M43 & M44".
I believe the last three named were all tandem-wing designs. (I attach an image of the M-42.)
Cheers.

 

[Wingknut]

Hi again,
I found the attached image of a Miles fleet-fighter (presumably the M-43) at: http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/n_o_d/oldstuff/html/weird/tandem.htm
With the M-39B being effectively a flying scale-model, it would be interesting to know more of the proposed full-scale M-39A, either to be powered by twin Hercules engines or three jets.
The only images I know of the full-scale Miles M-39A are of a model of the tri-jet version, taken from a lovely site called '47 Miles of Scratchbuilding', at: http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2007/01/stuff_eng_hrubisko_miles_02.htm
Cheers,
'Wingknut'

 

[lark]

The cutaway drawing from Flightglobal is the Miles M.43 fighterproject. It was part
of three Miles studies in 1942 for a higly manoeuvrable single seat low attack fighter,perhaps intended
to replace the Hawker Hurricane IID.

Source : Miles Aircraft since 1925-Putnam. Which showed the same drawing on page 250.

 

[red admiral]

More information from Aeroplane Spotter

 

[Wingknut]

I finally found the source whence I got the M.42 image - it's from the list of Miles projects on the Museum of Berkshire Aviation web-page at: http://home.comcast.net/~aero51/html/index.htm
Menu on the left at the above link will take you to images of a host of Miles built and projected aircraft, including the M.39B, M.42 and M.43 (although slightly frustratingly not the M.39A).

 

[Wingknut]

See also the 'Projects' page at the Miles aircraft site:
http://www.miles-aircraft.com/Projects_menu.html

Including the six-engined B.1 heavy bomber on the 'Libellula' pattern:
http://www.miles-aircraft.com/Projects_libellula_b1_bomber.html

And the M.63 Jet mailplane: http://www.miles-aircraft.com/Projects_m63_jet_mailplane.html

Cheers,

'Wingknut'

 

[diamant]

Hi I am new here.

I surprised in a very good way to see one of our models here. (Miles M39B)

These are the links for the full article regadirng of our Miles subcollection published in IPMS Stockholm sometime ago

http://ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2007/01/stuff_eng_hrubisko_miles_01.htm
http://ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2007/01/stuff_eng_hrubisko_miles_02.htm


Cheers
Santiago

 

[Stargazer]

These are the links for the full article regadirng of our Miles subcollection published in IPMS Stockholm sometime ago

http://ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2007/01/stuff_eng_hrubisko_miles_01.htm
http://ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2007/01/stuff_eng_hrubisko_miles_02.htm

Hi diamant! I've just discovered this thread and I'm in absolute awe before this masterwork!
Is the collection exhibited to the public at all, or is it strictly private?

Have you considered additions such as the M.1 Satyr biplane? the M.5 research Sparrowhawk with full span flaps? The research Peregrine and Whitney Straight used for boundary-layer control? The "Maggie Bomber" version of the Magister? The Hawk Trainer Coupe? And the M.77 Sparrowjet?

 

[diamant]

Hi

Many thanks for your kindly comments regarding our collection.
Yes, it is a private collection made by father and I (just a little

That sub collection is just a small part of our goal.

Our aim is to model all the aircrafts types that flew with the Royal Air Force, the Fleet Air Arm and all the Commonwealth in the time frame between 1934/36 and 1947, in all major versions (including different marks, prototypes, schemes, markings, etc). And to include also Lend-Lease and captured enemy types.

We used to build the prototypes of the aircrafts which later were used during the WWII (that is the reason of 1934/36)and also the prototypes of the aircrafts which were developed during the later years which were tested after the end of the war (like Gloster G42).

We have built (almost all of them by my father) 470 models so far, we have 132 models to rebuild and 539 kits to build.

Right now we are working on the Hurricane subcollection. We have already don 71 models out of 104.

These articles / photos will give you a better idea of our global intention.

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2005/05/stuff_eng_hrubisko_typhoon.htm
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2003/11/stuff_eng_hrubisko_spitfire.htm
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2006/01/stuff_hrubisko_mosquito.htm
http://ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2006/06/stuff_eng_hrubisko_tailless.htm
http://ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2007/01/stuff_eng_hrubisko_miles_01.htm
http://ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2007/01/stuff_eng_hrubisko_miles_02.htm
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2007/09/fleet-air-arm-models-01.htm
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2007/10/fleet-air-arm-models-02.htm
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2007/11/fleet-air-arm-models-03.htm
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2008/06/early-british-jets-01.htm
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2008/06/early-british-jets-02.htm
http://gregers.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=9875&highlight=cac+subcollection
http://gregers.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=9877&highlight=boeing+314


Kind regards
Santiago

 

[hole in the ground]

...
wow
...

 

[Wingknut]

I hope posting images from now-extinct web-links isn't against forum rules (if it is I apologise and please remove this) but as the web-link I gave above is seemingly now defunct, I attach the images of the two Miles Libelulla heavy bombers mentioned above.
(Both images were - as the images themselves testify - once at www.miles-aircraft.com)

Thanks a million to diamant for sharing the above links - the Miles models alone are superb.

 

[Stargazer]

Anything Miles makes my day... Thanks for sharing these! Didn't have a picture of the Libellula B1, so this is really nice...

 

[Wingknut]

Thanks, Stargazer. Here's one of the Miles M. 63 jet mailplane - same source as above.
All best, 'Wingknut'

 

[Stargazer]

Cool! Don't know if this has been posted here before, but it's another view of the M.63:

 

[robunos]

...a picture of the Libellula B1...

Is it just me, or is the fuselage of the Libellula B1
effectively that of the Short Stirling...


cheers,
Robin.

 

[Stargazer]

...a picture of the Libellula B1...

Is it just me, or is the fuselage of the Libellula B1
effectively that of the Short Stirling...

My thoughts exactly. And apart from the general configuration it doesn't look one bit like a Miles design... too UGLY!

 

[lark]

The Libelulla type bomber to B.1 was designed by Don L.Brown
who was the personal assistant of F.G.Miles.
Later an eight-engined variant was prepared by Georges Miles
and Ray Bournon.

source: Miles Aircraft since 1925-Putnam.

 

[robunos]

And the picture 'Miles Libellula Heavy Bomber',
posted above, appears to be a hybrid of the
Libellula and 'X' concepts...


cheers,
Robin.

 

[Jemiba]

Already in 1943 George Miles designed a 20 seat supersonic passenger aircraft, based on
the experiences with the "Libellulas". Powered by a group of jet engines in the rear fuselage,
fed by a ventral intake, the forward wing would have had a span of 13,7m, the rear wing of
22,3m, length 30,2m and MTOW 36 tons. Expected cruise speed was 1.2 Mach.
(from InterAvia April 1957)

 

[Stargazer]

Jemiba, you've made my day! The Miles enthusiast in me can but be thrilled to find there are still Miles designs unknown to him... Thanks for sharing.

 

[Jemiba]

Well, the perspective drawing looks a bit childish with its clubfooted
landing gear, but with the internal arrangement drawing and the length/
span data at least a basic 3-view should be possible

 

[robunos]

Well, the perspective drawing looks a bit childish with its clubfooted
landing gear,

No bogie undercarriages in those days, don't forget...


cheers,
Robin.

 

[Jemiba]

I just meant, that the wheels/tyres look much greater, than on the internal arrangement drawing.
What puzzles me more, is that this british design from 1943 clearly has swept wings !
From which german designer George Miles had stolen this revolutionary idea that early ??! ;D

 

[Stargazer]

I just meant, that the wheels/tyres look much greater, than on the internal arrangement drawing.
What puzzles me more, is that this british design from 1943 clearly has swept wings !
From which german designer George Miles had stolen this revolutionary idea that early ??! ;D

Don't forget that Miles WAS ahead on several key design aspects, most notably canard configurations and jet propulsion, as he designed an aircraft that never flew but served as a basis for Bell's X-1 research!

 

[Jemiba]

Absolutely correct, it was just meant as a little mockery, because George Miles
was british, not german, AFAIK. Or weren't swept wings not a german domain, as
we are told by so many people ?

 

[Stargazer]

Definitely not German, and if you look at the Miles Libellula canard series of designs, they nearly all had swept wings...

 

[robunos]

I just meant, that the wheels/tyres look much greater, than on the internal arrangement drawing

Oh, see what you mean. now, though to me, the wheels on the 3-view look too small, and ones in the perspective drawing look correct.
Also, that fuselage cross-section looks rather impractical...

Definitely not German, and if you look at the Miles Libellula canard series of designs, they nearly all had swept wings...

It was the Germans (Adolf Busseman) who developed the swept-wing concept for high speed flight, the sweep producing a reduction in streamwise T/C ratio, while still providing sufficient wing thickness to allow adequate structural rigidity.
In the case of the Libellula designs, the purpose of swept rear wing was to increase the moment arm of the vertical tail surfaces, compensating for the aft CG produced by the rear mounted engines.
Another reason for sweeping the wings of an aircraft is to maintain the correct relationship of the CP to the CG, as in the DH Tiger Moth. The original DH.60 Moths had straight wings, the upper wing passing directly over the front cockpit. When the type was adopted by the RAF, the Air Ministry asked for escape from the front cockpit to be made easier, so the top wing was moved forward to clear the cockpit. This moved the CP forward by an unacceptable amount, so the wings were swept back to correct this.


cheers,
Robin.

 

[Stargazer]

So swept-wings were indeed prior to Germany's use of them but for different purposes... Thanks Robunos for clarifying this!

 

[hole in the ground]

see also

Dunne's tailless aircraft

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/dunne.html

Sweep in conjunction with washout provides stability.

 

[joncarrfarrelly]

as he designed an aircraft that never flew but served as a basis for Bell's X-1 research!

And oft repeated claim beloved of the Brits that falls apart when one takes a close look
at the British and US transonic research program chronologies. Also at the time of the
first glide flight of the XS-1on January 25, 1946, the first M52 was still under
construction and not yet canceled. The Miles research was indeed given to the US after
the program was canceled in February 1946, however it clearly could not have been the
basis of the Bell research seeing as the XS-1 mockup had been approved on October 10, 1945.

The M52 and XS-1 have far more differences than they do similarities.

 

[Jemiba]

 

[lark]

Beautiful that way...

 

[Wingknut]

HUGE thanks for sharing the Miles SST design - a truly excellent find and just the kind of stuff that makes this forum such a joy. I love anything to do with Miles tandem-wing or canard designs but their 1943 SST has straightaway become my favourite WW2-era British "What if …?".
Two quick questions (sorry if they go off topic):
1) Do we know if anybody else was designing an SST in 1943, or earlier? (Maybe they were, for all I know.)
2) How feasible does the Miles SST seem to you folks? I might worry about that big plexiglass nose and a certain thickness of wing. (Although from Jens' drawings, there might almost be a wee hint of area-ruling about the fuselage …)
By the way, for what it may be worth (and I happen to be British, worse luck), I reckon the M. 52 and X-1 similarities are better explained as converging solutions to the same problem, and not by Bell copying the M. 52 in any important way. (While the M.52 was a brave gesture, I also reckon the X-1 was far and away the better thought-out design, and had far greater potential for development.)
All best, 'Wingknut'

 

[Stargazer]

Considering the problems De Havilland had in getting the Comet operational, I suspect the SST would have suffered the same problem with cabin pressurization, had it been built.

 

[Nick Sumner]

A truly astonishing find. Take that Napkinwaffe!

 

[Nick Sumner]

(and I happen to be British, worse luck),

Best of British luck to you...

 

[Jemiba]

"How feasible does the Miles SST seem to you folks?"

I would have expected aerodynamical problems, as the supersonic flight regime
to my opinion still wasn't fully understood in 1943. If it would have encountered
the same fatigue problems, as the Comet, I'm not sure, as the principal reason,
AFAIK was, that the strengthening frames around the windows weren't only glued,
but additionally rivetted. And the holes for those rivets later were the cause for
fatigue cracks. Tragically, it already was known, that additional rivetting of bonded
parts actually weakend the joint, but that knowledge hadn't come through to
de Havilland. That Miles would have made the same mistake cannot be taken for
granted, I think.