Miles M.52
Ich bin ein Prooner.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Home of the Full Monty.
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miles M.52
I don't know whether this is in the right forum. If not, perhaps the Mods would be kind enough to re-direct it.
I am not a professional, only a long-in-the-tooth enthusiast! I have just watched (again!) a documentary about the events leading up to the breaking of the Sound Barrier, and the thought occured, knowing what is known now about aerodynamics, engines, etc., would the Miles M.52 have done the job had it not been cancelled?
Any opinions appreciated.
Thanks. N.Z.
I am not a professional, only a long-in-the-tooth enthusiast! I have just watched (again!) a documentary about the events leading up to the breaking of the Sound Barrier, and the thought occured, knowing what is known now about aerodynamics, engines, etc., would the Miles M.52 have done the job had it not been cancelled?
Any opinions appreciated.
Thanks. N.Z.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Deepest Berks
Age: 83
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M52
Since the Bell X1A, which supposedly was the first aircraft to break the sound barrier deliberately, was to all and intents and purpose, a copy of the Miles M52, albeit rocket powered rather than by jet propulsion, I would say most definatly yes. The story is told in "Project Cancelled" by Derek Wood ISBN number 0 7106 0441 6. Hope this helps, Alan
Hate to be the wet blanket, but probably not, with the jet engine technology of the day. The US made it with air launch and rocket power, but the UK lacked a carrier aircraft or a place to do it, and was making no plans to build a manned rocket-powered version of the M.52.
That said - and in spite of many illustrious historians - I remain very impressed by the fact that key features of the M.52 - bullet-shaped body, all-moving tail and thin wing - were echoed by the XS-1 and were not adopted by Bell until after NACA knew about the M.52.
That said - and in spite of many illustrious historians - I remain very impressed by the fact that key features of the M.52 - bullet-shaped body, all-moving tail and thin wing - were echoed by the XS-1 and were not adopted by Bell until after NACA knew about the M.52.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LowObservable
I think the M52 could have coped with the stability and control issues re going supersonic (because of the features you mentioned)
As to the thrust issue why not do it down hill?
As to the thrust issue why not do it down hill?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe it was also one of the first to plan to use reheat (a/b for 'them'
)? I recall the pilot was to sit in the intake..............
a bit like that there French thing the ?'Coleoptre'? (sp?)
)? I recall the pilot was to sit in the intake.............. a bit like that there French thing the ?'Coleoptre'? (sp?)
Quote: The US made it with air launch and rocket power,
Apart from the fact that Scott Crossfield took the prototype F86 supersonic about a week earlier. And it also appears from some accounts that Luftwaffe Me262 pilots may have acheived it a few years before that.
Apart from the fact that Scott Crossfield took the prototype F86 supersonic about a week earlier. And it also appears from some accounts that Luftwaffe Me262 pilots may have acheived it a few years before that.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was not the illustrious Winkle Brown the marked man to do the deed? I'm sure he would have got it through the "barrier" even if he had to get out and push.
BOAC- think you mean the Leduc 0.22,rogeer Ramjet power.
I don`t think it was beyond the bounds that at the time the Lanc could have carried the M52 on top,a la Shorts/Mayo,Heinkel etc.there were also plenty of Lancs fitted with a variety of jet and turboprop engines to provide sufficient `steam`.
I don`t think it was beyond the bounds that at the time the Lanc could have carried the M52 on top,a la Shorts/Mayo,Heinkel etc.there were also plenty of Lancs fitted with a variety of jet and turboprop engines to provide sufficient `steam`.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd forgotten that one! I have now checked my abysmal French and the Coleoptere (with missing accents!) was equally frightening!
http://www.airbornegrafix.com/Histor...Coleoptere.htm
http://www.airbornegrafix.com/Histor...Coleoptere.htm
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that although the airframe was probably good for Mach 1, I very much doubt that it could have taken off, climbed to altitude, made a supersonic run in afterburner and returned to land on the fuel it could have carried. Even an air-launch would be marginal. Having looked at drawings of the aircraft, I just don't think the tanks had the capacity.
Last edited by Dave Unwin; 8th Jul 2008 at 14:17.
Ich bin ein Prooner.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Home of the Full Monty.
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the input, folks. All appreciated.
As I said in my original post, I am not a professional, but I was intrigued by the bullet shaping of the machine, the very thin wings, and all-moving tailplane being used, and wondered if these things would have enabled it to break the "sound barrier".
Of course, as mentioned, other things probably would not have helped, i.e. lack of fuel, how to get it "up there" in the first place.
But all interesting. Thanks again.
N.Z.
As I said in my original post, I am not a professional, but I was intrigued by the bullet shaping of the machine, the very thin wings, and all-moving tailplane being used, and wondered if these things would have enabled it to break the "sound barrier".
Of course, as mentioned, other things probably would not have helped, i.e. lack of fuel, how to get it "up there" in the first place.
But all interesting. Thanks again.
N.Z.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely with all the ingenuity that Miles Aircraft displayed over the years the possibility of needing fuel and how to launch the M-52 must have been sorted out. After all they were the originators of the key to supersonic flight - the all flying tailplane. I cannot imagine the Miles Brothers scratching their heads and saying "Oh dear we forgot about fuel and getting to altitude!" 
Interesting that, like the TSR2, a Labour Government had the airframes and jigs totally destroyed.
Interesting that, like the TSR2, a Labour Government had the airframes and jigs totally destroyed.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miles 52
I thought the point of the M.52 was supersonic level flight – and didn’t we have B-29 Washingtons suitable for air-launch then, if we’d got round to it ?!
Getting the engine going let alone intake issues etc might have been a different matter of course.
I’ve always thought Mr Yeager ( who was debatably the first anyway ) did it by brute power & guts, + the all moving tail…
As I recall there was a test ‘prone-pilot’ Meteor, the summary of which was “ there are 2 things a pilot can do in that position, neither of which involve flying ! ”
The scale models of the thing did rather well on the supersonic speed stakes, I believe.
I’ve always thought whoever ‘designed’ Thunderbird One had a good look at the M.52, though TB1 was supposedly good for 24,000 MPH and VTOL to boot, so I suspect may have used a different powerplant.
Before anyone queries, I’ve touched the real thing – TB1 - but unfortunately didn’t get a flight, security and all that.
Aviate1138, I think you’ll find all political parties are as bad as each other- the P1216 project, which made the F-35 look like a Sopwith Camel, including ‘trained carbon fibre’ forward swept wing versions was vetoed by none other then Margaret Thatcher when she was shown the mock-up at Kingston; what did she care, the Harrier had already saved her political arse !
DZ
Getting the engine going let alone intake issues etc might have been a different matter of course.
I’ve always thought Mr Yeager ( who was debatably the first anyway ) did it by brute power & guts, + the all moving tail…
As I recall there was a test ‘prone-pilot’ Meteor, the summary of which was “ there are 2 things a pilot can do in that position, neither of which involve flying ! ”
The scale models of the thing did rather well on the supersonic speed stakes, I believe.
I’ve always thought whoever ‘designed’ Thunderbird One had a good look at the M.52, though TB1 was supposedly good for 24,000 MPH and VTOL to boot, so I suspect may have used a different powerplant.
Before anyone queries, I’ve touched the real thing – TB1 - but unfortunately didn’t get a flight, security and all that.
Aviate1138, I think you’ll find all political parties are as bad as each other- the P1216 project, which made the F-35 look like a Sopwith Camel, including ‘trained carbon fibre’ forward swept wing versions was vetoed by none other then Margaret Thatcher when she was shown the mock-up at Kingston; what did she care, the Harrier had already saved her political arse !
DZ
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: due south
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double Zero: the prone position Meteor was developed to investigate the possibility of reducing the effects of G, and had nothing to do with the M52 which had been cancelled many years before.
You wouldn't have needed a B29 to get it up to altitude. M52 maxed out at 7720lbs, well inside a routine Lancaster's Tallboy weight of 10,000lbs. It could have been mounted in the belly as in the Betty/Baku combination or on top as the Heinkel111/FW190. Even with it on top a Lanc could have blundered its way up to 25,000ft. There would have probably been enough IAS to airstart the engine though getting it back on the ground at 170+knots would involve Manston, Elvington or Woodvale as they had the long wartime emergency runways.
The prone Meteor still exists at the RAF Museum at Cosford.
The prone Meteor still exists at the RAF Museum at Cosford.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 19th Jul 2008 at 01:56.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand corrected on the prone Meteor, should have looked up Don Middleton's 'Test Flying - the History of British aircraft testing, 1903 - 84' which remains unsurpassed for me, I remember the Meteor job was indeed concerned with 'G', though presumably Eric 'Winkle' Brown would have been in that position, among several other unenviable ones!
There is a programme repeated quite often on 'Sky' T.V. where he ruefully recounts how Miles gave the U.S. all their info' including the all-moving tail, then the Americans clamped up tight and no gen' came back the other way.
Then again we were daft enough to give jet engine designs to the Russians...
The original X-1 had a conventional elevator equipped tail, but someone with some foresight had included the option of an all-flying job; after early problems, it seemed worth trying the latter...
As for Thunderbird 1, I've just checked, and it's quoted as approaching Heathrow at 'only' 7,500 MPH though may have been slowing down ( not knots, though radio procedure in the series was surprisingly good, no ' over & out ' nonsense we still get in modern productions !
Maybe the seperate lift motor ( don't know what Mr.Farley would think of that ! ) was driven by a shaft from the main engine - there's no counting some people's ideas...
Whoever did those designs certainly had some aircraft knowledge - the Fireflash SST seems to show a hint of Barnes Wallace, while my dad took the 'P' out of TB2 with it's forward swept wings for years until I gleefully pointed to the X-29.
Back to the M.52, I know 'Winkle' is game for anything, ( I'd love to see some of the T.P's I worked with if asked to land a Sea Vampire wheels up on a floating rubber mat ! ) but I wonder if it was a good thing it was cancelled, or we'd have been minus one Test Pilot !
There is a programme repeated quite often on 'Sky' T.V. where he ruefully recounts how Miles gave the U.S. all their info' including the all-moving tail, then the Americans clamped up tight and no gen' came back the other way.
Then again we were daft enough to give jet engine designs to the Russians...
The original X-1 had a conventional elevator equipped tail, but someone with some foresight had included the option of an all-flying job; after early problems, it seemed worth trying the latter...
As for Thunderbird 1, I've just checked, and it's quoted as approaching Heathrow at 'only' 7,500 MPH though may have been slowing down ( not knots, though radio procedure in the series was surprisingly good, no ' over & out ' nonsense we still get in modern productions !
Maybe the seperate lift motor ( don't know what Mr.Farley would think of that ! ) was driven by a shaft from the main engine - there's no counting some people's ideas...
Whoever did those designs certainly had some aircraft knowledge - the Fireflash SST seems to show a hint of Barnes Wallace, while my dad took the 'P' out of TB2 with it's forward swept wings for years until I gleefully pointed to the X-29.
Back to the M.52, I know 'Winkle' is game for anything, ( I'd love to see some of the T.P's I worked with if asked to land a Sea Vampire wheels up on a floating rubber mat ! ) but I wonder if it was a good thing it was cancelled, or we'd have been minus one Test Pilot !