Miles M.52 and the X-1 - again!

[Tim McLelland]

I've been thumbing-through the various snippets about the aborted M.52 project and I'm trying (as best I can!) to establish what the true story was - rather than the usual urban myths that get churned-out year after year.

It seems to be accepted that the British Government sanctioned the release of all the Miles data (and some hardware if you believe some reports) to Bell, but does anyone know of any factual information which relates to this information exchange? I'm surprised that more information hasn't come to light after all this time.

I'm also intrigued by the notion that the release of info was done as an exchange agreement when America supposedly failed to deliver on their part of the bargain. Clearly there must have been some good reason for Britain abandoning the M.52 project and giving the information to Bell, but I don't accept the notion that it was all done on the basis of an information exchange which wasn't completed. One has to conclude that there was much more to the story but there doesn't seem to be much evidence to indicate what the real motives behind Britain's move were.

Anybody heard anything new on this age-old story recently?

[Dr Jekyll]

From what I heard there were two sets of information provided. Before the X1was developed US experts came to look at Miles proposals on the understanding that UK experts would later visit Bell. But the visit to Bell never happened. Then after the M52 was cancelled more information was sent to Bell.

The Bell X1 was designed with provision for a flying tail, just like the M52. But this wasn't enabled until testing demonstrated the necessity. Leading to speculation they copied it from Miles without understanding why it was used.

[Double Zero]

Obviously the person to ask is Test Pilot Eric 'Winkle' Brown, though he is very clear in his books and lectures he reckons the M.52 was cancelled purely for political reasons ( smarming up to the U.S. ) and large parts of the design, especially the flying tail, were indeed robbed by the Americans, who then promptly refused a reciprocal visit / info' exchange.

It also strikes me that there seems a distinct lack of German design input on the supersonic project, as both the M.52 & X-1 went with straight wings.

A bit odd on the face of it as Eric Brown was THE man who got hold of and tried all the German kit at the end of the war, including flying a live, rocket powered ME-163 ( other later, authorised flights were glide only for safety ) - and the Nazi supersonic wind tunnel was one of the things he found, though it or its' design may well have ended up in America.

Then again, judging by the DeHavilland DH108 swept wing job, which seems a jet powered approximation of the ME-163, and its' tendency to kill people as it wasn't quite right, maybe they realised they didn't have all the swept wing data...

[Groundloop]

Tim, is it just coincidence you have posted this today or did you read it in this week's Flight as well?

[BOAC]

as both the M.52 & X-1 went with straight wings. - I would not read too much into that. Obviously the high transonics benefit from sweepback, but my understanding is that a straight wing is a good as (if not better than) a swept once well through the transonic regime, so depending on the target Mach for both, maybe the straight wing was a better option in terms of strength etc, as with the X-15? They certainly were not planned to 'cruise' in the high subsonics.

[boris]

As far as I recollect, the Brits were obliged to give information to the Americans as part of repayment due to the Americans for all their input into the war effort here. Having got the flying tail info, I understand that we were then frozen out by the brothers and Miles were obliged to scrap their aircraft.
I further understand that there was a certain amount of "getting one´s own back" when a request for information on the computer controlled variable intake doors of Concorde was made to Bristol. Allegedly, the debt was already paid by then and Bristol, quite rightly, required squillions for the info. The Americans declined to pay which is why our supersonic airliner flew for years whilst the (B1?) was never a supersonic success.
If true - great!

[Atcham Tower]

Drifting off thread, I know, but did Winkle Brown really fly the 163 under power and, if so, where? He mentioned doing so in a TV interview a while back but in his autobiography only describes gliding flights. He may well have covered up an unauthorised powered flight. He is not the sort of man to exaggerate his already considerable achievements but it's about time he told us the full story!

[Tim McLelland]

Hmm, it's quite a mystery. Reason I asked is because I was writing a basic account of the M.52 story for my forthcoming Lightning book and although it's easy to re-trace the story as related in many books and magazines, there's hardly any evidence to support what is repeatedly said.

As far as I can determine, there doesn't seem to be any obvious single cause for the cancellation and it was probably due to a variety of factors including cost (the Government was nearly bankrupt), risk (there wasn't complete confidence in the design, although it seems odd that it was allowed to progress so far), American pressure (it seems clear that they wanted all the credit for their X-1 project) and Barnes Wallis trying to secure rocket model work for Vickers.

I just don't know how the un-supported story has persisted for years that the M.52 data was handed-over to Bell in exchange for American "data" (about what?) which never materialised. The story seems plausible but there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support it. I don't imagine that the M.52 data was handed-over for nothing, and yet there seems to be no evidence of what we were expecting (or actually received) in return. You'd think that after all these years there would be, and yet all one finds is endless repetitions of the same basic story, without any factual information to support it.

It's quite a saga!

[Double Zero]

Atcham,

Maybe it's only in our revised 2006 edition of 'Wings on My Sleeve' but Eric Brown is quite clear how he managed to find a 'live' ME-163 and, after seeing a German instructor perform towed glides, and a demo' of the rocket motor, flew it under power from its' trolley at 06:00 from Husum.

Pages 104-5.

His authority to do so was dubious, as he knew, and there had been a ban on other pilots flying captured aircraft after some accidents; Winkle Brown had a piece of paper giving him special permission and willing German groundcrew, but whether this was applicable was unsure so he didn't take any chances.

[bigal1941]

There is a book that I am sure that you will have read, but just in case, it is entitled Project Cancelled by Dereck Wood, published by Janes, ISBN Number0 7106 0441 6. Pages 18 to 24 cover the Miles episode . My own view having worked on various projects concerning supersonic flight that the then government was indeed bankrupt ,and were prepared to give in return for goods, favours or even hard cash, any kind of research or developement that had been undertaken. Another example is the sale of 18 RR Derwent jet engines which went on to power the Mig 15 prototypes. Hope this helps Alan

[Tim McLelland]

Indeed, I quite agree, but the mystery is precisely what the Government got (or expected to get) in retrun for handing-over data. The story is churned-out time and time again but there seems to be no evidence.

[Groundloop]

but the mystery is precisely what the Government got (or expected to get) in retrun for handing-over data.

A patronising pat on the back from the US?!!:ok:

[Tim McLelland]

hmm... well maybe, but even our government wouldn't be that stupid! I think it's safe to assume that there must have been some motivation to hand-over data. But then, the more I read about this saga, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of this data transfer having actually taken place, or precisely what the data might have been. The more you read, the more it takes-on the appearance of an urban myth don't you think?

[tonytech2]

Considering that the first X-1 airframe was rolled out in December 1945 it would appear to be difficult to believe that any input from the Miles project would have influenced the design. The movable horizontal stabilizer was always a feature of the X-1 but was for trimming purposes not primary flight control. Electrically operated it had a range of 5 deg up to 10 deg down. Conventional unboosted elevators were fitted.

The straight wing was there as they didn't want to introduce any more unknowns (like a swept wing) into the aircraft that they had to. An extremely thin straight wing has no problem going supersonic as proved by the F-104.

[boris]

Tim,
I think it´s quite clear that the motivation was repayment of lend-lease. No peculiar agenda!

[Double Zero]

Tim,

I accept that for a dash using brute power ( and I think that includes pretty much the entire envelope of the F-104 ! ) short,straight wings will do.

I don't see why you find it an 'urban myth' that we gave it all up to the States - look at the TSR2 /F111 saga.

Then again I seem to be one of the few who don't look on the TSR2 with dewy eyed sentimentality; like the Tornado which eventualy replaced it, all I see is a slab sided piece of junk good for impressing one's girlfriend at airshows, but would have been completely unable to do its' job in WWII, let alone against the Russians.

Like the Tornado later, it seems people thought 'Jamming' was the answer to everything, including a ' here I come' TFR - and AAA - I had a discussion about this with a roomful of Tornado Navigators at West Freugh - it seemed they were confident they could shield off AAA cannon shells as much as SAM's- well they probably could deal with SAM's - as long as they were Vietnam vintage - but I didn't hear any answers to how to put off a 20-30mm round, unless you're in Star Trek.

I was shouted down as, after all, they were pro's, I was just a bystander; sadly I was proven more right than I would ever have wished in the 1st days of Gulf War 1...

I doubt the TSR2 could have even been adapted to medium altitude calmly dispensing LGB's over a relatively unsophisticated target, given that wing.

It would have been great in WWI though.

[Kieron Kirk]

tonytech2,
NACA Langley investigated the movable horizontal stabilizer in 1942/3.
See this link Fact Sheets : Curtiss XP-42 : Curtiss XP-42 (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2244)

Later, NACA insisted that the Bell XS-1 feature a movable horizontal stabilizer.

Ciarain.

[judge.oversteer]

Thanks, extremely interesting thread.
I've always wondered about the M.52, X-1, X-15 and even the F-104 straight wing concept success.
Guess it basically means power.

[Brian Abraham]

A reading of ch6 (http://history.nasa.gov/monograph12/ch6.htm#54) and ch8 (http://history.nasa.gov/monograph12/ch8.htm#71) shows that NACA had both experimented with the all flying tail, and recognised possible pitch control difficulties in the X-1, hence the contract requirement for a trimable stabiliser. When Yeager complained of the dangerous nature of control difficulties in pitch it was no great leap, in my opinion, for Jack Ridely, the X-1 project engineer, to come up with the idea of modifying the stabiliser to "all flying", based on prior NACA flying tail research. Miles can be said to be prescient in their appreciation of the problem in the design of the M. 52, but I don't think they could claim to be the "inventor or originator" of the all flying tail. The US kept the X-1 flying tail, and the fact it solved the supersonic control problems, a secret for 5 years, so Yeager and other sources state. The first application on a production aircraft was the F-86E.

Edited to add I came across this in digging around. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88788main_D-558.pdf If you go to page 69 you will see the M. 52 myth debunked.

[Tim McLelland]

Well the TSR2 is an entirely different story which I'm also having to follow at the moment in connection with another publishing project. Like the M.52, it has a lot of sentimentality and urban myth attached to it. My own view (which I'm happy to change in the light of any evidence!) is that both the M.52 and TSR2 projects were both simple victims of cost, pure and simple. I don't buy into the notion that there were any dark political reasons which caused either aircraft to be cancelled even though such reasons have been perpetuated for decades. When you look at hard facts (such as they are) you tend to get a different story to the one that gets churned out again and again. I suppose it's just a symptom of human nature that people try and make stories appear more interesting than they actually are, but I've seen no evidence to suggest that either TSR2 or the M.52 were anything other than victims of their own cost.

[tonytech2]

Apparently they did have elevator problems with the X-1's on landing - just before touchdown they would run out of elevator authority causing it to land on three points - the nose gear was frail and they experienced several failures causing considerable damage.

I can't find any indication they ever converted the X-1's to an all-flying stabilizer for primary control. They did install a faster operating electric stabilizer trim actuator after the initial powered flights and prior to the first supersonic flight so apparently it was recognized that pitch control was a major concern.

Source for this is book "The X-Planes" by Jay Miller, second edition

[Double Zero]

I have to say Tim, from my comfy ill-informed chair, that the M-52 in particular doesn't seem a very expensive project especially considering the potential rewards - both research & political.

The whole fleets of V bombers came along pretty soon after, relatively.

Everything I've ever read ( which may be the smokescreen you're trying to penetrate ) was that Yeager came back scared after a hairy near-transonic flight, and told the designer / crew " we've got a real problem here " leading to the use of the all-flying tail for high speed flight, not landing situations.

I'm pretty sure I've seen Yeager say this, recorded quite a while ago, on Sky TV documentaries.

Judging from what I've seen, you won't get far even if you were to interview Yeager now !

He did admit that his depiction in the film 'The Right Stuff' ( which I would be happy never to see again ) the shot of him striding manfully along the desert with the burning rocket Starfighter in the background was " B.S, Son " ! In fact he was badly injured as the seat had caught in the 'chute, then ruptured and ignited his oxygen filled pressure suit - rather than walking out of a shimmering sun mirage at Edwards, he was a heap and in hospital for months.

The ego seems to have exponentially expanded as tempus fugit...

[Kieron Kirk]

The late Ray Sturtivant, in his book British Research and Development Aircraft, quotes £73,000 spent up to the 30th November 1945 and an estimated cost of £250,000 to complete.

The project was cancelled on 25th February 1946.

Can anyone do an inflation calculation to reflect today's value?

Just done it - a little under £9,500,000.

Ciarain.

[Brian Abraham]

Tim, re M. 52 cancellation some quotes from "Flight" of the era.

“Miles M.52, designed for a speed of 1,000 m.p.h. but which was abandoned ''for reasons of economy '' by the Air Ministry, at whose request design was initiated three years ago. It was felt, no doubt, that the Vickers pilotless model would provide sufficient data.” My note - The Vickers model was a M. 52 look alike and launched from a Mosquito in a program titled “Operation Neptune”

"The one project that could have led to improvement, the Miles M-52 transonic research aircraft, was abandoned by the Air Ministry in 1946, almost on the eve of success. Less than a year later, this decision was revealed as all the more calamitous when the Bell X-i (a remarkably similar aerodynamic conception) made its first flight in the United States.
The reason why the British project was shelved when the detail design was 90 per cent complete, all the assembly jigs finished, component assembly well in hand, and the special Power Jets engine ready to be installed, was difficult to appreciate seven years ago, and today the reason is even more obscure for, despite the official explanation that the move was due to economy, most observers at the time believed that a new project which profited from German experience had displaced the Miles war-time design.
Looking back, it is evident now that the substitute project never existed; and, especially in view of America's achievements in supersonic flight with such aircraft as the Bell X-i and the Douglas Skyrocket, the Ministry's decision, far from effecting economies, has proved most costly.
A little-known fact is that, apart from the two turbojet variants of the M.52, Miles had proposed a rocket-powered version, using a development of a German motor, and it was this project that would have been the most profitable."

"a similar scheme was intended for the supersonic Miles M.52, designed in 1943, you will find yourself wondering, as I am, how many years of British aeronautical progress were eaten up by the locusts of irresolution and apathy."

"In February this year (1946) work on the M.52 was abandoned by the Air Ministry, at whose request design was initiated three years ago, " for reasons of economy " ;no doubt it was felt that the Vickers pilotless model would provide sufficient data."

[Tim McLelland]

Yup, that's pretty-much the sort of tale that every magazine and book relates. It all sounds great but it still leaves the suggestion that there was some sort of dark plot involved. The story about data being transferred to the US just adds to it.

I'm never particularly impressed with conspiracy theories on any subject, but I'd be willing to go along with this one if there was even the smallest shred of evidence to support it, but when you look back at all these reports, they all say pretty-much the same thing, and yet not one of them offers any evidence of any "plot" nor any evidence of any transfer of data to the US.

That's not to say that it didn't happen, it's just that - being cynical by nature - I find it all very convenient that people keep churning-out the same story but never offer any facts to support it.

[Brian Abraham]

tonytech2, re your #21 post. Test pilot John Griffith talking of the propensity to break nose wheels said of the X-1 that the visibility for landing was very poor from the cockpit due to the design of the aircraft conforming to the .50 calibre bullet. This coupled with the windsceen some times frosting over on landing required the chase to provide height information and in his words "hope you'd hit the lake in the right attitude". Hitting nose wheel first was a perennial problem during the program. No comment is made of elevator effectiveness during landing.

[Groundloop]

Economical reasons seems reasonable to me. Remember this was a fairly new Labour Government who had more important things to think about. The UK was bankrupt after the war so I doubt that high speed research was high on the Govt's priorities at the time - far more interested in setting-up the NHS, for one thing.

BTW, nearly 100% of "The Right Stuff" was BS!:ok:

[Brian Abraham]

Tim, don't know if you have seen this 59 minute video Video Player > Test Pilot discussion (http://www.space.co.uk/DataBank/VideoGallery/VideoPlayer/tabid/384/VideoId/33/Test-Pilot-Discussion.aspx) Eric "Winkle" Brown talks about the M. 52 and a US delegation visiting the UK and the Pentagon reneging on its part of the deal. No time frame for the visit is given though. Personally I see little, and am hard pressed to find any, technological transfer from the M. 52 to the X-1-1. The M. 52 had a slab tailplane and a bi-convex airfoil where as the X-1-1 had a trim-able tailplane with attached elevator, and the wing used a NACA 65-108 (a = 1.0) airfoil. In comparison the X-1 was rather pedestrian, but you can't argue with what works and gets the job done. It was interesting to learn that Eric flew a Spitfire with a "slab" tail and that the H.P. 88 was the first British jet with a "slab" (first flown in June 1951 by "Sailor"
Parker).
When Yeager found control difficulties it was Jack Ridley who came up with the idea of using the trim-able tailplane as the primary pitch control and thus enabling them to get through the barrier. Rather than the trim motor being electric as suggested by tonytech2 at post #21, it was in fact pneumatic. The stabilizer was initially capable of one-degree, later three-degree, and finally two-degree per second adjustments. The motive force for the trim motor was 100 PSI nitrogen. The aircraft had a 5,000 PSI source of nitrogen which was also used to operate the flaps, provide cockpit pressurisation (pilot was on 100% oxygen) and pressurise the fuel tank.
There is some confusion evident with the term "flying tail" and I must admit to be among the confused, so I include a "Flight" editorial from aeronautical weekly | aircraft engineer | control column | 1955 | 0065 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1955/1955%20-%200065.html)

On the Slab
One of our 1955 resolutions was to tidy our thoughts in the matter of the all-moving tail, and in the process of implementing it we discovered (as we might have known) that today's supersonic panacea was old stuff around 1910. For sweet simplicity's sake it was occasionally resurrected in later years, notably on the D.H.77 intercepter monoplane of 1929—a "believe-it-or-not," this, which has special point in the present issue, wherein a very remarkable descendant of the "77" is the subject of felicitous news, partly by reason (it may be supposed) of its "slab" tail. And having marshalled our clear and righteous thoughts on a formerly perplexing topic, we now offer them as a plain man's guide.
Three forms of horizontal tail surface—"v.i." (variable incidence), "all-flying" and "slab"—are now being generally applied to transonic and supersonic aircraft. They were rendered necessary by the formation of shock-waves at high speeds and by flow-separation downstream of these waves, which, in many instances, rendered both the trim tab and the elevator itself ineffective.
Between the wars, of course, the variable-incidence tail had been commonly used as a trimming device on fast aircraft but was more or less abandoned as speeds increased—out of considerations of strength! It was reinstituted, on the North American F-86A Sabre, to develop the exceptional transonic potentialities of that fighter. In the modern "v.i." application fore-and-aft trim is achieved by an irreversible electric screw-jack controlled by a switch in the cockpit (most conveniently, on top of the control column). As well as maintaining trim the device can be used in manoeuvring, to lighten stick forces produced by the elevator. It is employed in conjunction with direct-mechanical, or power-assisted, elevators.
For even more effective control it became evident that the whole of the tailplane and elevator surface should be operated from the control column, through a fully powered irreversible transmission—hence the "all-flying" tail. This system, first applied to the F-86E, is so arranged that the tailplane is moved directly from the stick while the elevator is entrained by it as a "follow-up" surface, through a differential linkage. The entire surface is thus cambered in the direction of the desired control response. Trim is achieved by offsetting the relative incidence, in the neutral position, of elevator and tailplane

All of a Piece
The latest configuration—the "slab"—has been almost universally taken up for
American high-speed fighters and, for the first time in Britain, for the D.H.110. With the slab system the whole horizontal tail is one pivoted rigid structure, moved from the control column through an irreversible fully powered transmission, with the stick-top trim-switch usually acting on the "artificial feel" gear or stick-centering mechanism.
The slab tail is now considered well-nigh indispensable for adequate control in transonic and supersonic flight, especially when fore-and-aft instability, or "pitch-up" (an affliction suffered by some conventional types of swept-wing fighter) is likely. Any kind of aerodynamic tab is rendered quite ineffective once shock-waves build up at, and beyond, about Mach 0.85.
The slab, then, bids fair to remain as long as aerodynamic design proceeds along present lines. First exploited, in its modern "high-speed" application, by America, it has been taken up by a British company (as often in the past) with heartening results, for we believe that when performance figures of the D.H.110 are at last disclosed this big all-weather two-seater will prove to be well in advance of many single-seat day intercepters of more or less contemporary design. Certainly we may suppose that Mach numbers well over its publicly demonstrated unity have by now been achieved in shallow dives; and the possibility exists that, with advanced "five-figure" versions of the Rolls-Royce Avon, the Navy's ultimate version of their Sea Venom replacement might prove supersonic in level flight.
Meanwhile, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the slab tailplane might be applied with similarly happy results to other existing British fighters.

[tonytech2]

The video is worth every second of time viewing it. Superb - As amazing as the feats of Brown as a test pilot is the sharpness of his memory, recall and wit. Hard to think of anyone other than he I would more prefer to spend an afternoon (or more) listening to him telling of his experiences.

I do wonder if the M.52 would have been successful. The engine was only under development according to Brown. Didn't Power Jets go to Rolls about that time. Also the art of designing inlets for supersonic aircraft was not even in its infancy, a problem the X-1 avoided by being rocket powered. It is possible the M.52 could have ended like the Douglas X-3, only capable of passing M=1.0 in a dive due to engine insufficiency. One thing was very plain however, both Britain and America had badly lagged in wind tunnel design as made plain in the Test Pilot video.

Returning to the X-1 stabilizer, I reread the Chapter on the X-1 in X- Planes X-1 to X-15 by Jay Miller. He does say electrically operated by I now would suppose the control was electrical. I now understand the actuating muscle was pneumatic which makes sense. I also note he says the elevators could be locked on the X-1 and again that would make it a "slab" tailplane but I would assume the operation was controlled by a "Pickle Switch" trim control rather than the control column.

The book makes quite a point of the elevator problem during landing. The aircraft, at low subsonic speeds handled very well apparently. However, he states that it did run out of elevator authority just before touchdown causing the premature contact of the very weak nose gear. This had nothing to do however with the change in the stabilizer drive actuator.

Would appreciate if anyone can steer me to a competent technical description of the flight controls on the X-1.

[Tim McLelland]

I'm treading carefuly with this subject in my Lightning book. I've re-traced the story in brief and concluded that there's no evidence to support any particular reason why the project was abandoned, and that it may well have been a combination of factors. Realistically, I can't be fairer than that. Likewise, I don't want to dwell on the subject too much; it's just a case of recording the fact that Britain was in the supersonic business long before the Lightning actually came along!

[Brian Abraham]

Tim, this link BellX-2.com | A Shadow over the Horizon (http://www.bellx-2.com/sightings/horizon/article.html) may well lead one to ponder that some one may have got his "X's" mixed. Given the stature of the authors, thus far it's about the best explanation.

Foreign Influence on the X-2 Design. There does appear that a foreign influence may have found its way into the design concept of the Bell X-2. The X-2 shares three specific major component design features in common with the late 1943 proposed British Miles Aircraft M.52 experimental straight-wing supersonic airplane. The three include:

1. The biconvex wing airfoil section.
2. All-movable or all-flying, horizontal stabilizer (tailplane).
3. Pilot's emergency jettisonable cockpit capsule.

It seems beyond mere coincidence that these design features found their way into the X-2 design. There are those in the United Kingdom who have related that the Miles M.52 design features were indeed communicated to Bell Aircraft. Even though these airplane designs shared these three design features the airplanes are not comparable due to the advanced concept of the X-2.

The proposed British Miles Aircraft Company M.52 experimental supersonic turbojet airplane design was based on the Ministry of Aircraft Production Specification E.24/43 issued in late summer 1943 and abruptly, without official explanation, canceled in early 1946.

The concept of the supersonic biconvex airfoil can be specifically related back to Antonio Ferri and his 1939 or 1940 supersonic wind-tunnel tests in Guidonia, Italy. Also associated with the biconvex airfoil, by application of their supersonic pressure distribution theories to Ferri's test results, are the Swiss aerodynamicist Professor Jakob Ackeret (friend and contemporary of Theodore von Kármán) and Germany's Dr. Ing. Adolf Busemann (originator of the swept-wing concept).

As a point of historical interest it should be noted that the Guidonia, Italy wind tunnel was one of the world's first supersonic test facilities of its kind, it was designed by Professor Ackeret, and it was capable of generating test Mach numbers up to four. From this wind tunnel facility Antonio Ferri obtained data for his formal report: Experimental Results with Airfoils Tested in the High-Speed Tunnel at Guidonia, dated July 1940. These tests included a 10 percent thick biconvex airfoil at a Mach number of 2.13. This report was later translated into English and published by NACA as a Technical Memorandum with the designation of TM 946. The first theoretical studies of a biconvex airfoil are believed to have been presented by Professor Ackeret in his 1932 publication titled: Theory of Airfoils Moving at Speeds Greater Than That of Sound.

In summation it would seem,
1. Britain did open its technological doors to the US
2. The US welched on its agreement to reciprocate
3. The design of the X-1 was not influenced by that of the M. 52
4. It may well be that design of the X-2 was influenced by that of the M.52

tonytech2, would be interested on an authoritative source on the lack of elevator effectiveness during landing, as none of the NACA technical papers on the aircrafts longitudinal stability/controllability I came across make any mention. The reports state that cockpit visibility was "minimal" and windscreen frosting was problematic because the LOX tank was located immediately behind the cockpit, to the extent the pilot resorted to holding a thumb on the glass in order to melt a hole so as to see.
he says the elevators could be locked on the X-1 and again that would make it a "slab" tailplane
Not from what I have come across. As said, the tailplane was pneumatic, presumably electrically signalled, as Yeager said it was operated from a switch on the control yoke. All three aerodynamic controls were mechanically operated by pilot muscle power. Locking of the elevator to the tailplane to form a slab was not a feature of the original X-1, perhaps a feature of later models, eg X-1B?

[phil gollin]

As a GENERAL comment, not just on the X-1, after the US entered the was there was a supposed "open-book" agreement between the US and UK in WW2 concerning weapons and scientific research - which theoretically included company information.

Obviously it wasn't as simple as that. What was meant to happen was that each country both reported what was new or give progress reports on research, etc.... (In addition, service and commercial representatives were sent on tours of each other's country to investigate whether anything of interest could be found). Within that there were still commercial considerations. There was a general suspension of patent payments, licences, etc..... - all that was wound up at a later date.

Such agreements did NOT in general involve wholesale transfer of commercially sensitive info, but individual expertise was usually transferred if requested (often with specific restrictions if required). Whilst this was the ideal in actual fact there were many, many areas (normally rumoured to be "more" US than UK) where firms did not co-operate. In addition some technologies were (theoretically wrongly) not transferred (e.g. Norden Bombsight).

Towards the end of the war there SEEMS to have been a higher and higher rate of refusals on behalf of US companies - again often stated but without lots of evidence. Certainly the official histories and War Diaries often complain of lendlease difficulties from late 1943 onwards.

So, both Miles and Bell should "theoretically" have been open about reporting general progress and about sharing specific information IF AGREED by the company and country's authorities.

.

[Ken Wells]

Amazing how many people are still in denial over the M52 versus the X1

Old pprune threads dating back to 2003 debated this!

If any one gets the chance to visit the Woodley Aero Museum near, White Waltham (Miles old HQ) in Berkshire England, one can see the original models of the M52 designed in 1943. Stick a USAF logo on the side and you can hardly tell the difference between the M52 and the "ALL AMERICAN" X1.

Jeremy Clarkson presented a great programme on this subject with an interview with Chuck Yeager who stated that the reason the USA was "years ahead " of the rest of the world was because they invented the all moving tail plane. Clarkson then goes on to show archive footage of various Miles aircraft with moveable tail sections some decades previous.

[Double Zero]

J.clarkson, who is not the tyre-wasting petrol-head he could be taken for and far more knowledgable re. aircraft and engineering than he lets on, got pretty rough treatment from Yeager in a printed interview I read a while ago.

First of all J.C. was berated for being 20 mins late ( don't know whose fault but he is a professional journalist ) then when he asked, a tirade was launched against the Spitfire, " A pony-assed aeroplane "...

No mention was made of the fact that in the closing stages of the war in Europe, Yeager & chum split from their formation & played about, punching off their tanks & tring to shoot them.

When they RTB'd, it turned there had been a large, serious air battle by the rest of the Squadron - I wouldn't have thought such larks in that situation were very popular.

I remember Clarkson's closing comment was that when one has admired a person for a long time, sometimes it's better to stick with the image.

[chevvron]

Is it any co-incidence I wonder that Labour governments were in power when both the M52 and TSR2 were cancelled?

[VnV2178B]

Tonytech,

the Power Jets engine for the initial M.52 was acknowledged to be low on power and a fairly recent simulation showed that it would not have made Mach 1 (mind you I believe that it was done by a Frenchman, the report I saw was in French).

Power Jets were still developing the 'augmented' engine when the project was cancelled, there's a rather frightening film of a bunch of engineers watching an experimental reheat glowing red hot as it fires up. No health and safety rules there!

I don't know who to believe on the information cross-over saga, maybe one day the truth will be discovered but it's rather late now!

VnV

[tonytech2]

Thanks VnV for the info on the Power Jet engine for the M52. Was that engine later developed?

I am always surprised on how fast (relatively) the early jets went on such low thrust - really miniscule compared to the monsters we use now.

Re the slab or all-moving tailplane, its use goes back to 1903 as the Wright Flyer had one - well actually a foreplane as the Flyer was a canard design - The L-1011 Tristar was the only transport I worked that had a "slab" tailplane with of course elevators slaved off it. It gave the L-1011 excellent handling per all the pilots I knew and certainly was very much smaller than the horizontal stab on the DC-10. Of course all the Boeings and Douglas jets had trimmable stabs, either hydraulic or electric or both. Most were trimmed by what we called the "pickle switch" on the control wheel.

[secretprojects]

Maybe someone could pop to the National Archives and have a look at the Miles M-52 files there e.g.

AVIA 15/1968 Miles fighter-bomber jet propulsion aircraft to specification E.24/43: development policy 1943-46

AVIA 28/2560 Combustion system for the Miles M52 project: No.4 augmenter: tests 1946

There are lots of files from Sir Frank Whittle's collection here which might be interesting:

Detecting your browser settings (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/browser.asp?CATLN=3&CATID=512&POSCATLN=6&POSCATID=797000)

[Double Zero]

Chevvron,

I think you'll find the Tories just as good at scrapping defence / research projects; HMS Invincible was for sale until required for saving Thatcher's arse - and meanwhile the Sea Harrier FRS1 was poorly equipped as in no chaff/flare etc ( saves money ).

When shown the full scale mock-up of the supersonic STOVL P1216 project, she barely glanced before just saying no.

The Sea Harrier FRS2 ( as then ) mid-life update envisaged a larger, Lithium alloy wing - a lot more battle-worthy than carbon fibre - with tip Sidewinders, IRST, a new bubble canopy and JTIDS; not quite as it ended up.

I am sure the same applies to other projects; she didn't need to spend the money now her arse was safe for a few more years & sod the country's future, which is how ALL politicians of any flavour operate.

It may not be trendy to say so, and I am certainly not trying to start a political debate, but I sometimes wonder what things would have been like if Paddy Ashdown had been given a chance; ex-SBS sounds a lot more credible to me than ex- Young Farmers / Students Debating group !!!

[Brian Abraham]

I so happened to be viewing a photo of an aircraft today and it struck me that the tailplane looked like, would you believe, a slab. And no doubt about it as further investigation proved. The honour of invention seems to fall, until proven otherwise, to a Frenchman working on behalf of a British company, the aircraft flying in 1911.

bristol monoplane | colonial company | pierre prier | 1911 | 0837 | Flight Archive (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1911/1911%20-%200837.html)

[HarmoniousDragmaster]

One aspect I have not seen mentioned in this thread was something I read, I think, in Derek Woods 'Project Cancelled' (not 100% sure on that).

This was that with the end of the war and the acquisition of German swept wing research the Air Ministry suddenly got cold feet and believed that Miles straight wing design was a blind alley and that, plus cost, was the combined reason for the cancellation. In an earlier post a mention is made from a Flight magazine report, of an 'alternative project using German research' which it claims 'in hindsight did not exist'.

But one did. If briefly, there was an AW designed transonic research proposal put forward with both prone pilot and conventional cockpit with a 45 degree sweep wing and T tail and I read that the creation of this design was the reason the M.52 was axed. Of course it went nowhere.

The old 'reciprocal visit' story is a curious one though as exactly the same thing happened with the DH121 and Boeing 727 in the late 1950's. Did the stories get confused or were we really daft enough to do it twice? :)

[longer ron]

Yes I think a couple of our companies were 'Lambs to the Slaughter' to the US post war.
ISTR that the idea with the M52 wing was that it was designed so that the wingtips stayed inside the 'nose' shockwave - presumably also for the F104 !!

[Jetex_Jim]

Is it any co-incidence I wonder that Labour governments were in power when both the M52 and TSR2 were cancelled?

Probably. Duncan Sandys was the Conservative minister who famously produced the 1957 Defence White paper that saw off various military aircraft projects. He went on to be Minister for Aviation and got shut of the Fairy Rotodyne.

Sandys also lost his head in the famous polaroid sex scandal photographs featuring the Dutches of Argylle. At the time the only polaroid camera in the country was in the possession of the Ministry of Defence and Sandys had access to it.

[Double Zero]

Now there's a new slant to the story !

I've always had a pet theory that Duncan Sandys and Dr. Beeching were one and the same person...

I'm reliably informed that the Rotodyne made such an infernal racket it would be banned not just at the airport it was using, but any others in the same county.

[Wander00]

Double-Zero - it did. I heard it at White Waltham on an AEF visist!

[Jetex_Jim]

@DoubleZero
London Journal - A Sex Scandal of the 60's, Doubly Scandalous Now - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/16/world/london-journal-a-sex-scandal-of-the-60-s-doubly-scandalous-now.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)

[Entaxei]

I seem to remember a few years ago, the story emerging that the senior civil servant or minister responsible for the M52 project, stated that he had cancelled the project, as he did not believe that it would succeed in breaking the sound barrier, that the pilot would have no chance and would be killed, and he did not want the death of a brave man on his concience.

I think that it was also mentioned that the urgency behind breaking the sound barrier was no longer needed due to the allies winning the war.

Re the Rotodyne, yes it made the most awfull noise, I heard and saw it virtually throughout the flying programme. The noise level that it produced was unlikely to have been acceptable flying, let alone at an aerodrome or heliport. I believe it was a result of the tip jets and blade design.

SO they said ............................... :ok:

[Mr BlueSky]

So, I suppose Denis Bancroft just made his story up about an exchange of data between Miles and Bell - No doubt for a large amount of the folding stuff all for the sake of TV sensationalization...:rolleyes:

See Clarksons:

YouTube - Miles M52 v Bell X1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jR_h2N2LYk)

Although I seem to remember an earlier documentary (Maybe, Horizon or a Channel 4 series?) that went into it in greater detail

History Channels "Breaking the Sound Barrier"

YouTube - 3of5 Modern Marvels: Breaking The Sound Barrier (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDluUvGL8pA)

Entaxei, you got there before me... :ok: I thought the excuse given for it cancellation was "Too dangerous a risk for pilots" Also there were pilots queing around the block to fly it!

So, we gave information to the Americans in 1944, with the M.52 having the moving tail already fitted to the prototype - The X-1 powered flights started mid 1947 without the moving tail, at .94Mach the X-1 becomes unstable and according to Chuck, Bells team quickly decide to use a moving tail.

Two things, how come the Miles team had the M.52 fitted with the moving tail from the begining and yet the American team didn't realise there would be a problem with instability until they started powered flight tests?

Perhaps it was just a case of the Americans were in too much of a rush and just slung a big powerful squib into a bullit shaped aircraft with thin straight wings, thinking they would just push their way through the sound barrier... ;)

[Entaxei]

Or maybe the NIH syndrome coming into play, ('Not Invented Here'), so must be useless!.

On a slightly different note - I seem to remember vaguely - that powered models were produced of the M52 and fired off down at Pendine Sands, they all flew extremely well and very fast, so much so that none were recovered - problem is that this may well be faulty memory/short circuit and nothing to do with the M52 - so until verification please reach for the salt celler!!

Cheers :ok:

[Mr BlueSky]

Copied from Wikipedia...

Several thousand pounds would have been required to complete the first M.52. Instead, the government instituted a new programme involving expendable, pilotless, rocket-propelled missiles. The design was passed to Barnes Wallis (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Barnes_Wallis) at Vickers Armstrong (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Vickers_Armstrong), and the engine development took place at the RAE (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Royal_Aircraft_Establishment). The result was a 30% scale radio-controlled model of the original M.52 design, powered by an Armstrong Siddeley Beta (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Armstrong_Siddeley_Beta) rocket engine.[14] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-Brown_p._42-13)
The first launch took place on 8 October 1947 at high altitude from a DH Mosquito (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/DH_Mosquito), but the rocket exploded shortly after release.[17] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-16) Only days later, the Bell X-1 (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Bell_X-1) broke the sound barrier. There was a flurry of denunciation of Labour's decision to cancel the project, with the Daily Express (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Daily_Express) taking up the cause for the restoration of the M.52 programme, to no effect.[18] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-17) On 10 October 1948, a second rocket was launched, and the speed of Mach 1.38 was obtained in stable level flight, a unique achievement at that time.[14] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-Brown_p._42-13) Instead of diving into the sea as planned, the model failed to respond to radio commands and was last observed (on radar (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Radar)) heading out into the Atlantic (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Atlantic). Following that successful supersonic test flight, further work on this project was cancelled,[14] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-Brown_p._42-13) being followed up immediately by the issue of Ministry of Supply Experimental Requirement (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/List_of_Air_Ministry_specifications#Post_1949_Operational_Re quirements_and_Naval_Requirements) ER.103 (below).

Theres a much better write up in my copy of "Project Cancelled" that I will copy when I get home...:ok:

[A30yoyo]

The Bell X-1 was a better thought out project than the Miles M-52 first because it was air-dropped from a 'mother-plane' and secondly because it was rocket powered which concentrated on the objective of breaking the sound barrier rather than building something which might have developed into an interceptor

[tornadoken]

M.52 was initiated in October,1943 as test bed for Whittle W2/700 by-pass, plenum-chamber-burning engine which found no application. MAP R&D Controller cancelled it, drifting and billing, February,1946, when, if you recall, UK had no enemy, or money. He was scorned for muttering about endangering the pilot: but what he was trying to do was not to blight market credibility of Brabazon Type VB Miles M.60 Marathon, whose designer was “very good at biffing out small cardboard (types, but who) hadn’t really produced (subsonic) let alone supersonic ones (in metal)” M.Morgan,DCARD/MoS, at P.108,R.Turnill/A.Reed, Farnborough,Story of RAE, Hale, 1980. Neither X-1 nor M.52 offered any military utility, which is why they were assigned as experiments to "spare" design teams. M1+ in a straight line, with no load, off a very long piste...why?

Lots of schemes were, rightly, chopped as extravagances in Peace, not to say austerity. Why this endless resurrection of this one? If it's a notion that UK wuz robbed by F-86, may I suggest: a) it's the powered flying controls that count, not the idea of a slab; and b) that UK enjoyed 438 free-loan F-86E (370 airframes were C$-funded) to sustain RAF pending Swift/Hunter.

[Mr BlueSky]

R.A.E. – Vickers Transonic Research Rocket

R.A.E. ? Vickers Transonic Research Rocket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.E._%E2%80%93_Vickers_Transonic_Research_Rocket)

[megan]

This thread intrigued me to the extent that I’ve done a little research , and postulate a possible answer to the conundrum.
Captain Eric “Winkle” Brown RN was the pilot designate for the M.52, and wrote a book “Miles M.52, Gateway To Supersonic Flight”. He makes a number of claims in his book re the X-1, to wit,
1. The X-1 had a tailplane adjustable in incidence for trim purposes, with a conventional trailing edge elevator
Correct. The specification supplied to Bell specified that the XS-1 be equipped with a movable horizontal stabilizer to provide pitch (nose up or down) control when shock waves made the elevators ineffective, and spelled out also the rate of movement (1°/sec). Brown also notes the X-1as built “incorporated none of the design features of the Miles M.52”
2. ….. Yeager lost control when flying at Mach 0.94….. Both he and the engineers thought that was the end of the road. Magically a solution was provided by Bell almost instantaneously, in the form of a ‘field fix’ variation of the ‘flying tail’ encountered on the UK visit to Miles. Bell’s control solution was to use the pre-existing tailplane trimmer to modify the incidence of the tailplane in flight, by means of a switch in the cockpit. Two flights after evaluating their ad hoc ‘flying tail’ Yeager attained supersonic flight.
Not so, Bell did not change anything – see comment to 1. Yeager has always given the project flight engineer Jack Ridley the credit with coming up with the idea to use the tailplane trim as a means of pitch control during the period when the elevator lost effectiveness. Ridley, however, just had his finger on the pulse with respect to the papers crossing his desk IMHO. The ability to control pitch with stabiliser in the transonic regime was investigated by Axel T. Mattson in his paper NACA RM No. L7A03 “FORCE AND LONGITUDINAL CONTROL CHARACTERJSTICS OF A 1/16-SCALE MODEL OF THE BELL XS-1 TRANSONIC RESEARCH AIRPLANE AT HIGH MACH NUMBERS”, May 21 1947
3. When the X-1 ran into compressibility problems in 1947 it was rescued by fitment of the “flying tail”.

4. The British aviation fraternity is firmly convinced that the Bell X-1 owed its success to what the Americans gleaned from their visit to the Miles factory in Autumn 1944, and in particular what Bell learned from the M.52’s ‘flying tail’. Certainly, in spite of American protestations that they had their own original ideas on a ‘flying tail’, there does not appear to be any solid evidence of its appearance on test before the X-1 ran into transonic trouble in 1947.

5. On seventh flight, after ‘flying tail’ has been fitted to the X-1, Yeager attains controlled supersonic level flight, Mach 1.02.

6. The Americans will not admit that the flying tail which was on the M.52 was what let the Bell X1 break the sound barrier, Chuck Yeager had run into severe compressibility trouble at Mach .94. In fact, General Albert Boyd, head of the Flight Test Division at Wright Patterson AFB, had said, well fellers, this is the end of the road. Then three days later Bell came charging down with this all-flying tail, designed by a guy who had been to Woodley and had seen the tail on the M.52. He’d done some work on it, but basically it was the M.52’s tail, which he admitted more or less on his deathbed. They popped it straight onto the X1 there and then, and it did the trick.There is nothing for the Americans to admit to. It's interesting how Brown's narrative changes from that given in 2. to that in 6.

Yeager’s flight test report following the first supersonic flight.

Date 14 October 1947
Pilot: Capt. Charles E. Yeager
Time: 14 Minutes
9th Powered Flight

1. After normal pilot entry and the subsequent climb, the XS-1 was dropped from the B-29 at 20,000' and at 250MPH IAS. This was slower than desired.

2. Immediately after drop, all four cylinders were turned on in rapid sequence, their operation stabilizing at the chamber and line pressures reported in the last flight. The ensuing climb was made at .85 - .88 Mach, and, as usual, it was necessary to change the stabilizer setting to 2 degrees nose down from its pre-drop setting of 1 degree nose down. Two cylinders were turned off between 35,000' and 40,000', but speed had increased to .92 Mach as the airplane was levelled off at 42,000'. Incidentally, during the slight pushover at this altitude, the lox line pressure dropped perhaps 40 psi and the resultant rich mixture caused the chamber pressures to decrease slightly. The effect was only momentary, occurring at .6 G's, and all pressures returned to normal at 1 G.

3. ln anticipation of the decrease in elevator effectiveness at speeds above .93 Mach, longitudinal control by means of the stabilizer was tried during the climb at .83, .88, and .92 Mach. The stabilizer was moved in increments of 1/4 - 1/3 degree and proved to be very effective; also, no change in effectiveness was noticed at the different speeds.

4. At 42,000' in approximately level flight, a third cylinder was turned on. Acceleration was rapid and speed increased to .98 Mach. The needle of the machmeter fluctuated at this reading momentarily, than passed off the scale. Assuming that the off scale reading remained linear, it is estimated that 1.05 Mach was attained at this time. Approximately 30% of fuel and lox remained when this speed was reached and the motor was turned off.

5. While the usual light buffet and instability characteristics were encountered in the .88 - .90 Mach range and elevator effectiveness was very greatly decreased at .94 Mach, stability about all three axes was good as speed increased and elevator effectiveness was regained above .97 Mach. As speed decreased after turning off the motor, the various phenomena occurred in reverse sequence at the usual speeds, and in addition, a slight longitudinal porpoising was noticed from .98 - .96 Mach which (was) controllable by the elevators alone. Incidentally, the stabilizer setting was not changed from its 2 degree nose down position after trial at .92 Mach.

6. After jettisoning the remaining fuel and lox a 1 G stall was performed at 45,000'. The flight was concluded by the subsequent glide and a normal landing on the lake bed.

Yeager’s presentation at the first XS-1 conference, 9 January 1948.

As the Mach number was increased from .87 the buffeting became more severe and a nose down trim change was noted. The forces were quite light and the movement of the control column remained the best means of indicating the trim change. At approximately .90 Mach number trim change previously mentioned reversed and the tendency was for the nose to rise and in the range of approximately .92 Mach number the buffeting became quite severe.

At this point in the program it was decided from a correlation of model test data that the one degree per second actuator for the stabilizer might prove to be too slow for proper control during subsequent flights and an interruption in the program was made to install a faster motor. In the first flight after the new stabilizer actuator was installed the Mach number was increased to .94. At this point the trim change again reversed to a nose down tendency but it was still easily controllable and approximately 3° of up elevator provided level flight. From .94 to .96 the elevators and rudder became increasingly ineffective until at the latter figure they could be moved throughout their range of displacement with very slight response from the aircraft. At approximately .95 the buffeting decreased rapidly and became non existent at .96.

Up to this time a stabilizer setting of 2° leading edge up was used in all of the high speed test runs. The next flight was therefore initiated to investigate the effectiveness of control by the stabilizer at the higher speeds above .96 since the setting had only been varied in climbs up to this time. As the speed was increased on this flight the stabilizer was changed to 1° leading edge up and returned to 2° leading edge up successively at .84, .88 and .95 Mach numbers. The acceleration experienced in the cockpit was approximately the same for all speeds and it was decided that the stabilizer was still effective even though the elevator and rudder had lost their effectiveness. The ailerons remained effective throughout the range. With the stabilizer setting of 2° the speed was allowed to increase to approximately .98 to .99 Mach number where elevator and rudder effectiveness were regained and the airplane seemed to smooth out to normal flying characteristics. This development lent added confidence and the airplane was allowed to continue to accelerate until an indication of 1.02 on the cockpit Mach meter was obtained. At this indication the meter momentarily stopped and then jumped to 1.06 and this hesitation was assumed to be caused by the effect of shock waves on the static source. At this time the power units were cut and the airplane allowed to decelerate back to the subsonic flight condition.

Of particular note, is that the program was interrupted in order to install a faster trim motor, not to install a ‘flying tail’ as insisted by Brown. The X-1 retained the stabiliser/elevator system as spelled out by Brown in quote 1. through out its life, and was never modified for the supersonic flight, as a reading of Yeager’s reports above confirms.

Brown, in his book calls the M.52 tail a “flying tail”, and it was what would be called a “slab” today, a unitary piece with no separate stabiliser/elevator. Here is where I feel the problem lies. NASA and Yeager, even to this day, refer to the X-1 trimmable stabiliser and elevator set up as a, you guessed it, “flying tail”. Two contemporaneous aircraft, the D558 and the F-86A, both had the same set up as the X-1, trimmable tailplane with elevator, and Yeager credits the F-86 with its “flying tail” as giving it the edge over the Mig-15. It seems to me to be another case of two countries separated by a common language. Has Brown merely misunderstood the USA use of terminology? I can think of no other explanation, because the plain fact is, the X-1 tail never underwent modification from the day it was built, other than the trim motor.

It would be interesting to interview Brown to gain an insight into why he has the idea that the X-1 tail was modified.

[Jumbo P]

Megan
The definitive account of the design and construction of this aircraft (up to the end of the war) is in the second volume (pp 389-411) of Peter Amos' in-depth study of Miles Aircraft "Miles Aircraft: The Wartime Years 1939 - 1945 published by Air-Britain (Historians) Ltd. in 2012 www.air-britain.co.uk
The post-war cancellation of the project will be detailed in the third volume of the series, due for publication later this year.
Peter has been assiduous in assembling every shred of evidence, from the National Archives, the project's aerodynamicist (recently died), papers from George Miles' archives, from the USA and from Eric Brown.
By no means all the issues of interest have been solved to explain the design of this extraordinary aircraft. But what is clear is that the technical problems faced by Miles were enormous, and are much more interesting than the relationship with the X1. An excellent account by Brian Brinkworth in the Aeronautical Journal in March 2010 puts the project into its historical perspective.

[Dan Winterland]

The design of the M52/X1 was not the optimum for supersonic flight which is clear by the fact the profile didn't last past the experimental stage. The fighters coming off the drawing board contemporaneously were clearly able to achieve Mach 1. And it's fairly certain that George Welch beat Chuck Yeager in the XP86 (prototype F86) to the sound barrier by about two weeks. Although not recorded officially, the double boom was heard by many - including those USAAF pilots, including Capt Yeager, drinking in the Happy Valley Riding Club, over which George thoughtfully decided to "drop his boom". However, the official records show that the XP86 could only achieve supersonic flight in a dive and these days, Yeager is officially accredited as being the first pilot to achieve supersonic level flight. Thanks to a bloody big rocket - and of course the all moving tail-plane - wherever that was designed!

But before George's feat, it's quite likely that more than one Luftwaffe Me163/Me262 pilot achieved it before the end of WW2 by their accounts.

[Jumbo P]

The shape of the M.52 was determined by Whittle's need to accommodate his "Augmentor" after-burning system for the W.2/700 which required a cylindrical fuselage of constant radius. Else, I'm sure Miles would have tapered the fuselage in the conventional manner. Like the X1, the 'plane was really designed to explore the transonic zone as a research vehicle. Witness the ability to change the angle of both the main wing and the tailplane. Personally, I think one should look at it as a test vehicle for Whittle's new generation of jet engines rather than a serious attempt to reach 1000 mph.Compared to the technologies then available, particularly within Miles, it represented a huge step forward into the unknown, and was a considerable engineering achievement. Its cancellation was regretted by all but a handful of politicians.

[Thud105]

Although it is possible that an Me262 or 163 exceeded Mach 1, I think it would've been in an uncontrolled and ultimately fatal dive.
Knowing just how much fuel early turbo jets burn, I don't believe the M1 could've carried enough to take off in burner, climb to altitude, make a mach run (again using the afterburner, or reheat as I believe the Brits call it) and return.
There's good reasons why the X-1 used rockets, and was air-launched.
IMHO, of course.

[Mr Oleo Strut]

A very interesting thread for me as I used to work in the old Miles factory at Woodley where, of course, Bader lost his legs.
Now, a hearty mixture of hindsight and speculation often produces a rich heady broth of what might have been, and that is obviously applicable to the development of jet aircraft. If the wartime Miles jet had been completed and tested it might or might not have worked but the knowledge gained, combined with that of Whittle, pre-war Germany, and other UK and international pioneers would, I feel sure, have secured the UK a dominant position in general aviation development and production. Furthermore, the consequent spin-off of knowledge and experience in areas like that of fatigue, stress and metallurgy, let alone computing, avionics and radar would, almost certainly have avoided many of the errors built into the brilliant but flawed Comet programme. And if that had gone well I think it would have been the start of a new golden age for British aviation, instead of the beginning of the slow decline of the industry into what it is today, an important bit player in the general aviation scene. UK Politicians certainly did their best over the years to damn the industry with their dead hands of ignorance and lack of foresight and they succeeded. That is still happening today so, perhaps, nothing much has changed. I feel that the root cause of the British problem is the five year parliamentary system which encourages short-termism and the continuation of the status-quo.

[longer ron]

But before George's feat, it's quite likely that more than one Luftwaffe Me163/Me262 pilot achieved it before the end of WW2 by their accounts.

Very unlikely Dan for a few very practical reasons :)

To quote myself from last years thread....

I think one has to be a little sceptical about certain claims...even Willi Messerschmitt calculated that the 262 would be out of control after mach .86,so the critical mach number would probably not have been much faster than that - true supersonic flight would have to wait until the advent of powered controls and 'proper' swept wings !
The 262 did not really have a swept wing as such,there was a big thread on another forum 3 or 4 years ago discussing this claim and those who had the greatest grasp of aerodynamics were the most sceptical about this claim !

[con-pilot]

Thanks to a bloody big rocket - and of course the all moving tail-plane - wherever that was designed!


Interestingly enough, the 'all moving tail-plane' was not incorporated into the F-86 until the D model. The XP-86 that Welch was flying had a fixed tail-plane. Never the less, the F-86, even the D series, had to be in a dive to exceed Mach 1.

[megan]

The XP-86 that Welch was flying had a fixed tail-planeWas trimmable con, as can be seen in the video of the aircraft's first flight.

M68-Y9dGQcs

Re supersonic 262, quote from Heinrich Beauvais, Me 262 Test Pilot, Rechlin Test Centre 1935 - 1945, "One pilot, a man called Mutke thought he had passed the speed of sound. But there were problems at high speed. The plane was damaged by buffeting. The rivets popped out and the skin on the fuselage buckled. So I don’t believe it and neither do the the experts".

[Jumbo P]

There is one example of this project, at RAF Cosford where it will be conserved. Does anyone know its history?

[Exnomad]

M52 wind tunnel model sat outside our drawing office when I worked at FG Milkes limited

[Exnomad]

The M52 Wind Tunnel model resided in our Drawing Office for many years, no Idea where it is now.

[Exnomad]

One further snippit of early transonic research. On national service in 1953, were were on our "overeas navigation excersize", on route to Tripoli in a Varsity, refueling stop at French base at Istre.
Saw an unmanned research model, carried on a JU52, which looked remarkedly like an M52. Any ideas what became of that.

[Allan Lupton]

Don't know about it on a Ju52, but it would otherwise seem to be one of René Leduc's ramjet jobs, such as this Leduc 21 on its SE 161 Languedoc air launcher:

http://ift.tt/1GgKpRe

[con-pilot]

That is not a JU-52. Now to be perfectly honest, I've no clue what the bottom aircraft is.

Perhaps a Condor? Nope, wrong type of engines.

So I give up.

[AvroLincoln]

It's sitting on an S.E. 161 Languedoc transport.

[Allan Lupton]

Yes, AvroLincoln, and young mr. Con-Pilot may find it helps if one reads the post you are replying to.

[henry_crun]

Aaahh! That was when the French made their own aeroplanes instead of just helping BAe.


Hat, coat, ogive....

[con-pilot]

Yes, AvroLincoln, and young mr. Con-Pilot may find it helps if one reads the post you are replying to.


Thank you. :ok:

[megan]

Further to my post #54. In quotes are statements by Captain Brown in "Miles M.52 Gateway to Supersonic Flight"…in August 1944, all this research was inexplicably passed to the Americans.

Autumn 1944 MAP arranges a visit to Miles Aircraft by Americans representing USAAF, NACA and Bell Aircraft Corporation. They take away general arrangement drawings of the M.52.

In the autumn of 1944 the MAP arranged a visit to Miles Aircraft by a number of Americans representing the United States Army Air Force, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics and Bell Aircraft Corporation. On the instructions of MAP, Miles was to give the visitors all the information on the M.52 and answer their questions, and in three weeks time it was hoped a reciprocal visit to the USA would be made by a Miles design team and a similar full exchange of information on American supersonic flight knowledge would take place.

To understand the American desire for the visit to Miles, it must be remembered that in 1944 the Germans and the British were ahead of the rest of the aviation world in high-speed research. With the end of World War Il in sight the Americans wanted desperately to get on the leader board in the race to supersonic flight. We probably responded wholeheartedly in a gesture of gratitude to our gallant ally, and fully accepted the reciprocal offer in good faith. Here we came unstuck, however, because one week after the American visit the MAP told the Miles team that the return visit had been cancelled by the Pentagon for security reasons. It is much more likely that the US visitors had been taken aback by what they had learned in the UK and wished to save themselves the embarrassment of having to admit they had little to offer.
The above meeting did not occur, so ipso facto, an invitation to visit the US could not have been made. The first non British subject to be given an insight into the M.52 program was Doctor Clark B. Millikan, acting Director of the Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory at Caltech (who quaintly described himself in his report as a “Civilian Technician”). He visited the Miles factory at Reading on the 28th June, 1945, where he was hosted by Mr. & Mrs. Miles, and the Ministry of Aircraft Production M.52 representative, Group Captain Banditt. The following day he visited the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farmborough, where he had discussions on the M.52 with Ronald Smelt, who was in charge of flight research. Dr. Millikan was aware, probably made during the briefing by Mr. Smelt, of detailed performance calculations and aerodynamic studies contained in Farmborough Tech. Rep. No. Aero 1470, July 1944. R.A.E. reference number Aero 1344 R/F/96, entitled "Further note on the Miles Supersonic aircraft (E 24/43)" by C.M.Fougère, B.A.

He subsequently wrote a report, “Technical Report of Visit by C. B. Millikan to British M.A.P. Project E 24/43 Miles 52 Transonic Research Airplane”, which was circulated through the United States Navy Bureau of Aeronautics. He was not given any material, drawings etc to take away, and had to draw a sketch of the aircraft in his report from memory.

His Conclusions and Recommendations on the M.52

The project of a transonic research airplane is a valuable and interesting one.
The project seems not to be receiving very intensive support from the British government nor to have a very high urgency rating.
In general the design appears to have little to offer U.S. designers, although the very thin biconvex airfoil section with thick constant curvature covering, the unbalanced power boost control and the all moving tail might be of interest.
It is believed that with the present state of knowledge a much better solution of the transonic research airplane problem is possible.
It is concluded that the design offers relatively little of interest to United States aircraft designers.
In view of the above it is recommended that no further steps be taken by the Navy at this time to obtain additional information on the project from the British government.

He was not given any documentation to take away, having made hand written notes during briefings, and was obliged in his report to make a sketch of the aircraft from memory.
To my mind the biggest mistake made was to hand over the complete M.52 data to the Americans in autumn 1944. There was no obvious war related urgency to offer such co-operation as Britain had done earlier with its invention of the jet engine. We had a substantial time lead over any other aviation country in the race to the prestigious goal of supersonic flight and we gifted it away. Perhaps there was some overriding political reason for this philanthropic gesture, but if so it has not surfaced to date.
Nor will it surface because it never happened. Visit by Dr. Millikan refers.
Surprisingly a second American visit to Miles Aircraft took place on 8 july 1946 by Major E.H. Hall and Major Kent Parrot of the Air Technical Section of the Military Intelligence Division, that is the Military Attaché°s Office. This was arranged by the Ministry of Supply (MoS) and the visitors were given a tour through the plant and observed the jigs, fixtures, parts and mock up of the M.52. They reported that the first prototype aircraft had been completed and destroyed in a series of static structural tests (presumably at RAE Farnborough), while the second prototype had all jigging and tooling completed and about 90% of all airframe components fabricated, but not assembled. Their report comments on all major features of the M.52 but omits to say anything significant about the “flying tail’. Perhaps,in the light of subsequent events, it was not politic to advertise a British stroke of genius in an American military report.
Note that Captain Brown states that this was the second visit, which in fact it was. Dr. Millikan having been the first. The “flying tail” had already been mentioned by Dr. Millikan in his report and nor was it a British stroke of genius. The NACA were more than familiar with the “flying tail”, the XS-1 using the trimmable stabiliser with elevator because its controls were purely manual. A flying tail on the X-1 would have required powered controls because of the hinge moments involved, and this aspect of the X-1 was addressed by Scott Crossfield in his report “HANDLING QUAILTIES OF HIGH-SPEED AIRPLANES”, 28 January 1952.
Eventually it had hardly come as a surprise to learn that the XS-1 had a fuselage based on a 0.5 calibre bullet.
Both design teams had no experience of supersonic flow, but were well aware that some ballistic projectiles were supersonic in flight, and so sort advice from their countries respective armament experts. They found that the armament people had highly refined the design of supersonic noses. Broadly described, both teams used noses of ogival form, as used on supersonic progectiles. The M.52 nose took the form of a 5/10 secant ogive, while I couldn’t find the exact form for the X-1, I suspect it would have been a tangent ogive. For explanation see,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nose_cone_design#Haack_series
Their lack of jet engine expertise was in the end such that they decided to go for a modified German rocket motor.
Not the case at all. The US had a long history of rocketry development, beginning in 1926 with Robert Goddard. Reaction Motors, formed in December 1941 by long time experimenters Lovell Lawrence, Franklin Pierce, James Wyld and John Shesta, began testing rockets of various thrust capabilities, ending with a 6,000lb engine built to a specification laid down by Commander Fink Fischer for an unstated Navy project. Their engine was selected for the XS-1 because the original Aerojet engine was rejected on safety grounds, since it used red fuming nitric acid and aniline, which are hypergolic. It was also having development issues, but the safety case was the overriding factor. Germany had absolutely nothing to do with it.
So here we have the elements to form a conspiracy theory. At the end of World War II Britain was financially bankrupt, so why not use the United States’ formidable finances to buy out the M.52 and prevent it raining on General Arnold’s parade. Far fetched and a slur on our gallant allies?A slur definitely. When it comes to the X-1 program Captain Brown seems to see a conspiracy around every corner.
One thing is certain and that is that the formation of the new USAF and the Bell X-1’s breaking of the sound barrier both took place, as planned, on 14 October 1947.

I4 October 1947 On seventh flight, after flying tail has been fitted to the X-1, Yeager attains controlled supersonic level flight, Mach 1.02 (date stage managed to herald the founding of USAF and demise of USAAF).The X-1 was never in its entire life fitted with a "flying tail", as I explained in post #54.

Captain Brown makes another egregious error, I say egregious because the facts are so readily to hand. The USAF was formed on the 18th September 1947 under the National Security Act of 1947, which had been signed into law by President Harry S. Truman on July 26, 1947. The XS-1 team had instructions from Colonel Boyd to progress at their own speed, and not to take risks. While the USAF wanted a momentous event to mark their foundation, they didn’t want it to be commemorated by a smoking hole either. No stage management involved.
Cancellation of the M.52 meant deep disappointment, total frustration, burning anger, and heare5tfelt sympathy for other members of the team. For our proud nation it meant betrayal of our leading position in high speed flight technology.

“I was due to fly the M.52 in October 1946, and I was, shall we say, disappointed to be robbed of that. I was sitting at Farnborough when the head of Aero Flight Section Morien Morgan came in and said, ‘I’ve just had a call from Miles to say the M.52’s been cancelled.’ I absolutely blew my top, I charged off to see Sir Ben Lockspeiser, who lived around the corner from me and was chairman of the Supersonic Committee which had cancelled it. In his official statement he’s said ‘in view of the unknown hazards near the speed of sound it is considered unwise to proceed with the full scale experiments.’ He knew me, and he received me, but I didn’t get any change out of him. He just said, ‘Maybe it’s for the better’. I was so furious with him that I signed his son David into the RAF, because Ben was prevaricating.”
Captain Brown has dined out for a long, long time on his erroneous stories regarding the XS-1. Has he been blind sided by having the title of first man snatched away from him when it was seemingly within grasp? That he was angry is beyond doubt given his statements above, but why concoct stories in which there is no basis of fact? The unfortunate fact is, his stories have become accepted wisdom and gospel. With his history there was no need to be less than absolutely honest with the events that took place, and trying to embellish them to fly his country’s flag and denigrate those on the opposite side of the Atlantic detracts from his legacy, if indeed that was his aim. Only a psychologist could comment.

Nevertheless, a man who had a deep and abiding pride and love of his country, served his nation impeccably, and with immense distinction in his chosen field.

[CNH]

I wouldn't say that I knew Eric well, but we were acquainted. I remember an event at Cosford, where there was a dinner in the evening. Towards the end of the evening, we got talking, and he had had a few drinks. He started becoming very vehement on the subject, and I suspect he developed something of a bee in his bonnet about it all.

[megan]

I've been mulling over why Captain Brown may have come up with the story about the X-1 tail being modified. I wonder if he has conflated his story with this event.

On the 5th June, 1947 an open house was held for about 100 members of the Aviation Writers Association at Muroc. Airframe #2 was used for a ground run demonstration of the engine, which resulted in fire damage to the tail due to an explosion in the oxygen side of the number three cylinder head. The aircraft was returned to the Bell factory at Buffalo for repair on June 9th, where #2 was repaired by the simple expedient of installing the tail taken from airframe #3, then under construction.

Airframe #2 was returned to Muroc on the 27th July.

[tornadoken]

megan: your 2 most recent posts will be unwelcome to Crecy and to Air-Britain, both with imminent books on/with M.52. Such is the lure of conspiracy. I am with CNH: bee in bonnet.

The War ends; no UK enemy or (until 15/7/46 $ Loan) money...yet Ministers continue, nay expand funding civil aircraft as prime $-earners/sparers. One is Miles M.60 Marathon.

When he had been MAP's Director of Scientific Research, Ben Lockspeiser had funded M.52 29/12/43 as FTB for Whittle's reheated turbofan W.2/700. Now as DGSR(A)/MoS Sir Ben was: a) Chairman, MAP Supersonics Committee; b) part of the team managing the Brabazon suite's budget; and c) protector of a very modest Aircraft Research budget, which he chose to apply to ideas of evident civil, $-earning potential: Flying Wing (the AWA schemes), laminar flow (HP), VG: “funds…to begin experimental work” on scale models; in Summer,1948 V-A’s Barnes Wallis would elicit VG interest from BOAC MD, Whitney Straight. J.E.Morpurgo, Barnes Wallis, Longman, 1972, P.313). These might all follow as Brabazon-1960s, where Brab-Now relied on turbines to defeat Connie, Dakota and the array of gestating giants (Mars, Constitution, Globemaster...)

When chopping the pointless supersonic vehicle 2/46 he must not embarrass its originating Minister Cripps, now at Trade, nor blight Brabazon Type VB M.60, so he spoke of “pilot risk”. All wholly logical. No conspiracy. Ministers then and now can be persuaded to back winners: Cripps at Trade funded the Land Rover, whose Defender descendent has only now gone out of production. The key is to pick the X-Factor, not the lemon.

[megan]

megan: your 2 most recent posts will be unwelcome to Crecy and to Air-Britain, both with imminent books on/with M.52. Such is the lure of conspiracy.tornadoken, how right you are. Osprey Publishing have just put out a publication, as part of their "Xplanes" series, titled "Bell X-1", authored by Peter E. Davies, who is a frequent contributor to the magazines put out by Key Publishing.

I sent an email to the Osprey editor asking for it to be forwarded to Peter Davies, in which I detailed the errors in his publication - those enunciated in this thread. No reply has been received.

Today I logged onto the KeyPublishing Forum web site, something I've not done for years and years, to receive the following message,You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never
It would seem a section of the British community is not interested in facts, but prefer to dwell in a state of delusion. And please, don't do anything to relieve us of our delusion, we prefer to live a lie. Seems like Tracy Curtis-Taylor all over again.

It would seem Lance Corporal Jack Jones had it right, "They don't like it up 'em!" Perhaps they took exception to my observation in the email to them, "As a document detailing a period of historic importance, I’m afraid the best use to which Browns M.52 book can be put is to light your campfire."

Oh, and by the way, the Osprey book is OK, but perpetrates the usual myths about the British giving the US all the details, and British influence on the X-1 design. The author doesn't understand the X-1 pitch control system, in places he has it correct, and in others it's obvious he hasn't.

[treadigraph]

Today I logged onto the KeyPublishing Forum web site, something I've not done for years and years, to receive the following message,
Quote:
You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.

Date the ban will be lifted: Never

Megan, don't take it personally! I have also been banned from Key for years for no reason I could think of - I gathered from friends that there had been some digital cock up or other that resulted in a lot of users being banned in error. I got an test email from them last week, tried my account again - nope, still banned! :)

[megan]

I got an test email from them last weekThat's interesting treadigraph. I had a test email from them a few days ago as well, which is what prompted me to go to their forums. Had forgotten the password, so they had to send a reset, and that's when I found the banned message. I took it as they were having a fit of pique over the email I sent to Osprey a couple of weeks earlier. Is your ban for life as well?

[treadigraph]

I did exactly the same, got my password reset and so on...

Yes, banned for life! Ah well, worse things happen at sea. Could probably re-register using my office address or another persona but can't be bothered...

Cheers

Treadders

[megan]

Just emailed the managing director questioning why, or what the problem is. Let you know the result.

Edited to add: 18 minutes after my enquiry a reply from the Managing Director. His IT guy also sent an email saying, "I have checked your account on the forum and found that it was deactivated. I have enabled it and you should now be able to login again. I believe your account was de-activated by the system during a maintenance routine that identified your account as being inactive. The test message was sent by the system incorrectly after I recently moved the forum to a new server. Apologies for the inconvenience."

Certainly good service.

[skylon]

Well the TSR2 is an entirely different story which I'm also having to follow at the moment in connection with another publishing project. Like the M.52, it has a lot of sentimentality and urban myth attached to it. My own view (which I'm happy to change in the light of any evidence!) is that both the M.52 and TSR2 projects were both simple victims of cost, pure and simple. I don't buy into the notion that there were any dark political reasons which caused either aircraft to be cancelled even though such reasons have been perpetuated for decades. When you look at hard facts (such as they are) you tend to get a different story to the one that gets churned out again and again. I suppose it's just a symptom of human nature that people try and make stories appear more interesting than they actually are, but I've seen no evidence to suggest that either TSR2 or the M.52 were anything other than victims of their own cost.The Bell X-1 did not use any "stolen" brit supersonic technology. The 'Stabilator' was invented long before the M.52... its not a british invention. The general concensus among jet engine experts at the time was (and correctly so) that jet engine technology was considerably less advanced than what was needed to reach supersonic performance. When Frank Whittle's farce was uncovered, the program was discretely cancelled... end of mystery. 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. One of the reasons why the M.52 was cancelled.

Bell copying the M52 remains pure speculation without a credible support.

The complaints of an embittered engineer, Dennis Bancroft and disappointed test pilot Eric Brown holding a personnel grudge are not actual facts... especially if that engineer himself did not know what actual knowledge the US had before the transfer of the M-52 data. 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 any 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.
The fate of the TSR2 is the funniest of all conspiracy theories, almost childish.

[megan]

Bell copying the M52 remains pure speculation without a credible supportThere was no input to Bell about the M.52. I have a copy of the hand written report written by the sole American, and the only foreigner, briefed on the M.52.

[FlightlessParrot]

SNIP
The general concensus among jet engine experts at the time was (and correctly so) that jet engine technology was considerably less advanced than what was needed to reach supersonic performance. When Frank Whittle's farce was uncovered, the program was discretely cancelled... end of mystery. 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. One of the reasons why the M.52 was cancelled.



I've come in a bit late, evidently, but what was "Frank Whittle's farce" and where is the uncovering recorded, please?

This is purely a straight request for information; I am conscious of a great deal of mythologising about British aviation history, mostly on the lines of "brilliant industry initiatives cut down by Government stupidity/parsimony/treason." I wonder where those myths might have originated? OTOH, whilst I as a schoolboy was fed the "Whittle invented the jet engine" over-simplification, I haven't subsequently found anything one might call a farce: so I'd like to know.

[Quemerford]

I'd recommend Volume 3 of Peter Amos' superlative work on Miles: it has a great deal of detail regarding the M.52 and its demise. And based on primary-source data, not heresay and supposition.

[skylon]

I've come in a bit late, evidently, but what was "Frank Whittle's farce" and where is the uncovering recorded, please?

This is purely a straight request for information; I am conscious of a great deal of mythologising about British aviation history, mostly on the lines of "brilliant industry initiatives cut down by Government stupidity/parsimony/treason." I wonder where those myths might have originated? OTOH, whilst I as a schoolboy was fed the "Whittle invented the jet engine" over-simplification, I haven't subsequently found anything one might call a farce: so I'd like to know.Whittle W.B.2/700 engine was a failure... it did not produce the specified thrust required to go supersonic and never successfully completed a full power test without damage... Whittle abandonded the project and the W.B.2/700 was never completed and was canceled The UK government had no choice but to cancel the already over budget and behind schedule debacle that is now remember as the M.52 a plane that never was and certainly never flew.

Whittle was fired, forced to quietly resign in order to save what little reputation Power Jets Ltd company had left in a desperate attempt to survive the M.52 fiasco...Whittle never worked in the british aero industry ever again .

​​​​Whittle invented the jet engine is another claim without any historic or educational value.. But it made for very good propaganda in post WW2 Britain when nobody wanted to know anything about Nazi German scientific achievements, in other words the bad guys. But the myth has been debunked long time ago.
After 1980, the scientific world introduced the concept of co - inventors.
​​
We have been told that Brits broke the enigma code at Bletchley Park. The names of Jewish Polish mathematicians Marian Rejewski, Jerzy Różycki, Henryk Zygalski have been erased from the records to give Alan Turing the whole credit.

[skylon]

[QUOTE=Double Zero;4630857]Obviously the person to ask is Test Pilot Eric 'Winkle' Brown, though he is very clear in his books and lectures he reckons the M.52 was cancelled purely for political reasons ( smarming up to the U.S. ) and large parts of the design, especially the flying tail, were indeed robbed by the Americans, who then promptly refused a reciprocal visit / info' exchange.

​​​​​[/QUOTEAn interesting anecdote but unfotunately it has nothing to do with the reasons why the M.52 was a failure or the Bell X-1 a success , but his disappointment and bitterness is understandable.

[skylon]

As far as I recollect, the Brits were obliged to give information to the Americans as part of repayment due to the Americans for all their input into the war effort here. Having got the flying tail info, I understand that we were then frozen out by the brothers and Miles were obliged to scrap their aircraft.

If true - great!
The most ridiculous conspiracy theory ever. Have to admit it's very amusing. Bed time story for 3 year old..
The same British government has handed over the jet engine technology to Stalin.. Did they ask the Americans when they did it? Russians have copied and reverse engineered it to power the MİG 15.

[fauteuil volant]

Is this not getting just a tad tedious? I suspect that you're not, skylon, persuading anyone who hasn't already been persuaded. Now what did the Queen say in Act III, scene II of Hamlet? Oh yes, 'the lady doth protest too much, methinks'.