Miles M.52 and the X-1 - again!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Greensboro, NC USA
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Chessington, Surrey
Age: 76
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Kieron Kirk; 8th Jan 2009 at 20:54.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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."
“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."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
BTW, nearly 100% of "The Right Stuff" was BS!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim, don't know if you have seen this 59 minute video Video Player > Test Pilot discussion 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
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.
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
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Greensboro, NC USA
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim, this link BellX-2.com | A Shadow over the Horizon 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.
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?
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
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
.
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.
.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: BERKSHIRE
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Birmingham, England (sometimes)
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Greensboro, NC USA
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London, UK
Age: 50
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !!!
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 !!!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
bristol monoplane | colonial company | pierre prier | 1911 | 0837 | Flight Archive