Gillette Wings
 

Just read about them recently and they were given this term by test pilots referencing the famous razor manufacturer. If you are flying an aircraft with Gillette wings, they are sharp enough to cut you. Why would wings be manufactured that are so sharp. It has to do with supersonic drag as explained here.

bi convex wing - Google Search

You can read some history about them here in the race to break the 'sound barrier'.

Bullet planes, fatal crashes – and the top secret British project to break the sound barrier first | National Geographic

Any further info is welcome.

The National Geographic link contains misinformation about the M.52/X-1. The following paras are nonsense, though being a UK publication it's expected the fallacious Eric Brown story would prevail,
Those on the X-1 program fully understood the aerodynamics involved, from the outset the aircraft was designed with a trimable tail plane with attached elevators, primary controls were all mechanical. Had the aircraft been fitted with an all flying tail as on the M.52 the pitching moments of the tailplane would have required powered controls, the X-1 was devoid of any power source, having only batteries to power the recorders and pressurised nitrogen for other services (trim motor, also used to pressurise fuel tanks, operate gear, flaps, and cockpit pressurisation).
The information provided to Dr. Millikan was rudimentary (have a copy), not even a scale drawing, he had to draw one from memory back in his hotel room.No field fix was involved of this nature occurred, the only field fix was adjustment of the rate of trim and addition of a more powerful trim motor, but that was a result of flight tests and not advice from Miles. No dialogue ever took place between Miles and Bell.What Miles informed the US about is known exactly, the recipient of the information, was Doctor Clark B. Millikan, published a report which he forwarded to the United States Navy, of which I have a copy. The X-1 didn't have an all moving tailplane as on the M.52, it had a trimable tailplane with attached elevator, exactly the same as on your Boeing 737. Millikan thought the M.52 all moving tailplane interesting. He saw no reason for the US to pursue any further interest in the M.52. Sorry to be a wet blanket, but one is rather sick and tired of the fable, promoted in the main by Eric Brown, of how the M.52 benefited the X.1 program.

Thanks for the reply which I found quite interesting. Obviously, I am just reading books including several by Eric Brown. About the X-1, he does say that when it ' ran into compressibility problems in 1947, it was rescued by the fitment of the 'flying tail' ". Of course, I am just taking things at face value.

Your statements about the validity of his claims are the first I have heard. Is there some sort of documented controversy about whether his statement is correct. And if not correct, is it just due to an honest misinterpretation.

Did the Bell X-1 have a trimmable stab(like a 737) prior to the meeting with Miles(versus a fixed horizontal stab).

A little off topic but interesting nonetheless.

The aircraft remained unchanged throughout its life, other than the mods I mentioned above. I'm afraid because of the stature of Eric Brown as a test pilot in Britain his word has been taken by all and sundry as gospel, only one thing wrong, he's barking up a tree. A pilot for the M.52 had never been chosen, Eric because of his position in the industry assumed it was going to be him, thus he had his claim to fame of having his name for ever written in the history books as the first to crack the Mach one was wrest from his grasp. The M.52 would only have been able to make the speed in a dive, not in level flight as had the X-1.

The thread here was the impetus for me to delve into the subject further and obtain the hand written report.made by Doc. Millikan, it took some time to get the story right, I believed the Eric Brown story to begin with, but a read of his M.52 book is so full of easily proven nonsense it makes you wonder if he was senile when writing, I'm more of the opinion that he was just being spiteful at the fact the US got there first. Whatever you do, don't buy his M.52 book, its nothing but rubbish from one cover to the other.

https://www.pprune.org/aviation-hist...x-1-again.html

Thanks for the info. Perhaps the book does have some good flying stories.

It appears that Miles Aircraft wanted to test their supersonic razor wings on a subsonic aircraft first. So they decided to use another Miles built aircraft. This was a regular general aviation aircraft called the Miles Falcon which had 130 hp engine and had its high lift wing which replaced by a wooden razor wing and a single piece horizontal stab.

An original Falcon is shown here:
Miles M.3A Falcon, G-AEEG (museumofberkshireaviation.co.uk)

The modified Falcon is shown here:
Miles Gillette Falcon L9705 (Print #9903761). Photographic Prints (prints-online.com)

megan

Some interesting info about the X-1 in this long interview

It is interesting looking into this. One might think Yeager first flew the X-1 but here is an interesting story about its history......

Jack Woolams Archives - This Day in Aviation

Yeager wasn't even the prime pilot at the start, he was to fly chase, Bob Hoover was the original designated pilot, I'm assuming because of his rocket experience with the Me 163, although he only made glide flights. An indiscretion of giving an impromptu low level air display in a P-80 meant the plum job was taken away from Bob and given to Chuck. The ever humble Bob would have been a far better candidate than the ever egotistical Chuck to have worn the cloak of fame, a crying shame.

Watched the video you posted above punka, pure comedy, Chuck doesn't let the facts spoil a good story.

He never flew the NF-104 forty times as he states, he crashed it on his forth flight, the real story of his involvement in the program is told by the project test pilot in this link, read all the chapters. Not a glowing testament as to Chucks abilities.

NF104 | Birth of a Spaceplane

Neil Armstrong has a completely different story to Chuck about getting bogged in the the T-33 on the lake, who is one to believe, Neil or Chuck? Chuck might like to explain how it was that an air force truck with towing equipment was waiting near by.

I'll send you a PM with the story.

megan

I'm sure you know the story but for those who don't, there was another pilot who lost the opportunity to be first. This article also has some interesting technical info and a couple of flying experiences.

Slick Deserves His Due - AVweb

Should you have an interest in the X-1 story the best book available is "Into The Unknown" by Louis Rotundo, the transfer of the aircraft from Bell to the USAAC is a complicated one and is forthcoming in telling the Goodlin $150,000 story is myth as being a reason for the transfer.Re the PM, Yeager is quite specific in the video above that he made 40 flights in the NF-104, the fact is he didn't, only making 3½ flights, the ½ because he lost control at apogee and ejected. Listening to him in the video one gets the impression he was running the NF-104 program, in fact he had absolutely nothing to do with it, other than making an attempt, as an interloper, on the altitude record so as to carve another notch. The altitude record made by the assigned test pilot was never ratified, presumably because another couldn't take a bow where the greatest test pilot that ever lived failed. The NF-104 link will give the whole story. 10,000' was added to the altitude that Yeager did actually reach, I guess so he could do a Maxwell Smart.

Thanks,

I'll get the book after finishing the NF-104 link.

Here is a podcast that I listened to the other day. Chuck admits that he is outspoken and has some interesting things to say about the design of the Hawker Hunter.

Podcast: The Chuck Yeager Interview (aerosociety.com)

https://boscombedownraes.org/2018/02...space-library/