Miles M-52

[Martin H]

this is the first of a pair that im doing. For those that are not in the know. The M-52 was Britains failed attempt at going throu the sound barrier. The project was canned by HMG and Miles were ordered to hand over all research data to the Americans...with an agreement that the Miles people could have access at anytime. Only to be told by the yanks that the info was clasified and that they should not have known it existed.

[Tophe]

Thanks for this picture, Matin. I have discovered this plane in the book Project Cancelled, while it was not mentionned in all the aviation encyclopaedia I have read before. Interesting indeed, but I did not remember it was so beautiful... Thanks.

[Chris707]

Nice project!

I remember having an M.52 for Flight Simulator awhile back - IIRC, it was indeed good for flight past the Mach - in a dive at least.  In one of those bizarre juxtapositions only realisible in the virtual world, I managed to take off from KPIT, make it out to the foothills of the Appalachians, do a couple of bangs, and then get back (barely) to Pittsburgh. In one instance, I did get it into this ridicolously small strip up in the hill country due to low fuel, but there was no way in ^$%& it was ever getting back out again. You did have to be careful in putting the gear down too early, as it absolutely killed your airspeed, and took forever to get back up if you had to go around, IIRC.

Chris
--------------------------------
www.dataviewbooks.com

[lancer]

Funny how the yank one lookd almost exactly the same don't it. Yeat ANOTHER example of our leading edge frittered away by stupid governments and treachrous 'allies'. When they finally airdropped a 1/3 scale model, the thing went supersonic first time. Bloody typical.
Personally, I think the M52 episode is one of the most shameful in , after TSR2 that is, British aviation history. Particulary as it directly involved our esteemed 'allies'.

[nev]

Whilst the US behaviour over the whole supersonic thing was bad, its nowhere near as bad as the disgraceful behaviour of HMG who actually enabled them to do it ie "give the US all your research.  By the way, your projects cancelled"      

[lancer]

I completely agree with you Nev.  

[joesus]

Before you get too far into this aviation urban myth thread, the first X-1 airframe rolled out in Dec. 45 and was doing glide tests in January, and the Miles cancelled in Feb. 46, so any similarity was not due to data transfer after that. The data may have been only somewhat useful anyway: you didn't have transonic tunnels either, at the time. The air launched rocket was much more straightforward than an afterburning turbofan, so the M-52 being first was not a sure thing. The biggest loss to British aviation progress was that you guys pretty much forced Whittle out of the biz. An afterburning turbofan in 1947!
Still, about time I did an M-52.

[Tophe]

When they finally airdropped a 1/3 scale model, the thing went supersonic first time.

Do you mean supersonic flights occured long before Chuck Yeager victory (but without a pilot aboard) ? Maybe my question is stupid if the dreadful V2 German rocket was supersonic, and everybody knows it (except me)...
I know that pilotless machines are boycotted by almost all aviation historians, ignoring the flying machines 30 years before the Whright Bros (or Ader etc.). I know that, but let you just think of something : if in the 21st century, the UCAVs (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles) replace piloted fighters and bombers, as already done for Reco planes, our grand-children will laugh at us, so blind before actual progress of electronics and computers.
I know this is an uneasy subject. All the Aviation encyclopaedia start from man wanting to fly like a bird, and a pilotless machine is out of the subject, I understand. All the adventure of talented and heroic pilots is also supported by veterans and governments, while simple efficient machines are less thrilling for dreamy children choosing their future job...
And I have read a disturbing article in Air & Cosmos magazine : "are you ready to fly air-travel in an automatic plane, without pilot aboard ?". I think we are not ready, but our grand-chidren may be, who knows ? What if ?  

[Martin H]

All ways good to hear the other side of any debate....the balance is maintained, with out decending into a slanging match.

One last comment from me thou. In an TV interview Chuck Yeager mentioned the all moveing tail plane. Saying that it was invented in the states in 45. Problem is that achive film footage dated 1942 shows a Percival Proctor test flying an all moveing tail plane out of what is now Luton airport.
Dont get me wrong Yeager's achivement should never be belittled...after all dispite the politics, or anyones (inculeding mine) personal opinions on the subject. He got there first.

[Captain Canada]

Saying that it was invented in the states

As was our very existence itself !

Sorry......couldn't resist !

Nonetheless...very cool model ! Screwy intake config, tho....

 

[Ollie]

So, ever heard about the supersonic Me 262??

Mach 1 Me 262

Check the official US Air Force handbook for the 262.  Now who got past Mach 1 first, eh?

Handbook

:ar:  

[Martin H]

Now theres a turn up for the books    

[lancer]

Yeah, it surely is. I've had this site bookmarked for some time now. It makes for a VERY interesting read.

[Mairfrog]

The 262 couldn't go supersonic without modification, as the shifting centre of lift would put it into and unrecoverable dive. They probably had an all flying tail on that too, all they had to do was look up Miles' patent. That's how Germany got started on jet engines.

I think it's a good measure of the US hostility to UK/European aviation that NASA bought a TU-144 for supersonic research, rather than getting a Concorde off Air France. The Tu-144 was such a death-trap that even the Soviets wouldn't use it for passenger transportation. Air France would've been delighted to get shot of a Concorde as only BA operated it profitably. Yet NASA went to their erstwhile mortal enemies for an SST.

Wonder what the placards will say under all those Concordes now in US museums? 'Economic Disaster', 'Environmental nightmare', 'Should've bought Boeings' I'll wager. There certainly won't be anything about Europeans succeeding where America failed.

Mind you, I still blame the cowardly and naiive UK politicians for letting the US walk all over us. It all started with Atlee's mob and that post-war loan...

[elmayerle]

The situation you're describing with the Me-262 is called "Mach tuck".  The same phenomenon affects Learjets above Mach .85 and is one reason their placarded for Mach .78 under manual control and Mach .82 under autopilot.

Personally, I think the US would've been a lot better off if Boeing had won the C-5 and Lockheed the SST; but that's this engineer's PoV.  As to NASA going to the Russians, well, it was under Clinton and Gore who were trying to make excessively nice with them.  I would've rather they'd used a Concorde, too; better configuration documentation there, I'm certain.