Talk:Bell X-1/Archive 2

Reference
I have the Yeager book from Bantam sitting in front of me, and I noticed that the reference about Goodlin wanting $150,000 is on page 96, not 121. I don't really have time to figure out how to change the citation. Can someone help me?--JKBodylski (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you confirm that you have the 1986 edition, ISBN 0-553-25674-2? There can be differences in page numbers in different editions. I will change the page numbers if it's the same version. - BilCat (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh good catch, this is the 1985 version ISBN 0-553-05093-1. Thanks for your assistance.--JKBodylski (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

X-1 capability and requirement lacking
In Yeager's 1954(?) autobiography, he noted that the X-1 requirement included not only drop tests but the ability to reach Mach 1 from a rolling ground-based take-off. They had large tires for this as well. His autobio includes this configuration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.232.210.150 (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Glamorous Glennis- Color
The X-1 is so iconic. Does anyone have info on why it was painted orange? I've assumed it was to make the plane more visible at a distance but that's pure speculation on my part. Ock Raz  talk  02:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

When I visited the Stafford Air and Space Museum in Weatherford, OK, the exhibit sign described the color as "Universal Orange," designed to aid in visibility from the ground. It also made the (unverifiable?) claim that the Golden Gate Bridge and several Canaveral rocket gentries were painted the same color. Here's a photo of it. Rvanarsdale (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Insight To Origins of X-1 Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6jR_h2N2LYk Twobells (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Remember that Richard P. Hallion says that there was no technology transfer from Miles to Bell, and that documentaries about the notion are flawed. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * He said a lot of things and the technology transfer is very well documented. Twobells (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Talk Sections
I have added an entirely neutral verified American citation confirming without doubt the British contribution to the Bell X-1 which has just been deleted out of hand with no discussion, yet another example of what seems to be an entirely US-centric npov article. This user refutes all the verified citations, essentially, all the books written on the subject as well as verified citations by the American Public Broadcasting Service. [ Secondly, this is the second time I have had to write this as the entire section was deleted out of hand by user BilCat which is totally unacceptable. Twobells''t@lk 11:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You have cherry-picked your sources, ignoring those that don't agree with your preferred version. You have failed to account for Hallion and others who deny the influence of Miles Engineering. That is why your recently added text cannot be kept. Binksternet (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Cherry picked? With respect how can you say that? I included verified authentic citations which tarry with other Wikipedia articles, how on earth is an editor to include the correct chronology of the Bell X-1 without including the citations? What citations would you like me to add if you feel these have been 'cherry picked'. I can only go by the citations referring to the development of the Miles M-52 and the Bell X-1 from the available sources available which happens to be both American and British. Twobells''t@lk 17:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You must introduce a strong dose of doubt to the text you compose, citing Hallion and others who say that there was little or no influence from Miles. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The old 'cherry picking' claim, that excuse is getting old fast. :-) Moving on, as far as I understand, it was only Hallion holding out against the balance of authors? Anyways, I have finally the time to alter my edits and include the element of doubt as reflected by the 'Towards Mach 1' source, regards as always.Twobells (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion
I would be in favour (note: Canadianism) of including a brief mention that contemporary development of aircraft capable of supersonic speeds was occurring, including that of the de Havilland Dh 108 and Miles M.52 at the same time as the X-1 was being designed. The technology transfer from the British can also be included, as long as there are authoritative reference sources cited. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, I have re-added my original edits along with the citations and also added content that may cast doubt on the claim that the Miles.M52 was essentially the father of the Bell-X1, regards. Twobells (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Replica at Stafford
In Weatherford, OK, there is a small Smithsonian affiliate, the Stafford Air & Space Museum. They've just recently had a replica of the original X-1-1, the Glamorous Glennis, produced based on original blueprints. Here's my source: staffordmuseum.org Just wondering if the community would like it added to the list of aircraft on display, given appropriate caveats about the true identity of this plane as a non-operative replica. Rvanarsdale (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hallion unrelaible r.e. Miles M.52
Recently re-watching the Secret History documentary "Breaking the Sound Barrier" - the original British version of the Nova episode "Faster Than Sound" which is referenced here - led to me seeing how the possible influence of the Miles M.52 on the Bell X-1 is dealt with here, and I see that there had previously been much discussion on the matter above, much of it between Twobells and Binksternet.

The page currently states:


 * "American author Richard P. Hallion has cast doubts on the British contribution to the X-1, countering the British view that the X-1 design benefitted from work on the M.52, and stating the X-1 was flying before the British handed over the M.52 data following its cancellation."

The cited NASA source states:


 * DILL HUNLEY: Dick, this isn’t just about the D-558. But the two D-558s and the X- 1 shared the movable horizontal stabilizer. And there was a video the British put out last year that attributed that innovation to British research. Do you know if there’s any truth to that?


 * HALLION: It’s an utter myth. This obviously has been a symposium concentrating on the D-558. But there is something here that we have to talk about regarding the X-1 for a minute. The British television program was picked up by Nova [a Public Television Broadcasting Station television series in the U.S.A.] — and to give Nova its credit, it recognized there were a lot of flaws in it. The Nova people tried to work as much as they could with the video. They had to work around those flaws and some of the problems in it. The video that had been done in Great Britain suggested that there was a technology transfer from the Miles Aircraft Corporation and the so-called Miles M.52 program, which was a proposed transonic research airplane that never went anywhere.


 * The video suggests that there was a transfer from the Miles M.52 effort into the XS-1. Absolutely false. Partisans for the Miles M.52 program suggest that after it was canceled, data was transferred to Bell. At the time that the M.52 was canceled, the XS-1 was already flying. Its design had already been fixed. And there was no possible way that there could be any technology transfer there.

The relevant part of the the cited NOVA trasncript states:


 * DE BEELER: ... My personal feeling is that, let's go step by step and use all the tools and knowledge in Europe, anywhere we could find it, and put it together and see what we would come up with.


 * STACY KEACH (NARRATOR): It is unclear just how much information was exchanged between the British and American teams. But for some across the Atlantic, the memory of the collaboration remains a bitter one.


 * DENNIS BANCROFT: The idea was that they had decided that it was a good idea to make a supersonic airplane, and they had heard that we were making one. So, they came over to England with the idea that they would have all the information that we had accumulated, the idea being that a fortnight later, we would go to America and they would give us all the information the Americans had got. But after the Americans had got the information, take the drawings away within a fortnight. When we were trying to arrange the visit, they just said, "Sorry. Secrecy. The Pentagon says you can't.


 * STACY KEACH (NARRATOR): But the real threat was Germany. If America was months behind the British, it was even further behind the Germans. By 1944, Germany already had a vehicle that could travel faster than sound: the V2 rocket, a weapon of terror unprecedented in modern warfare.

However, the original British version of the programme runs like this:


 * DE BEELER: ... My personal feeling is that, let's go step by step and use all the tools and knowledge in Europe, anywhere we could find it, and put it together and see what we would come up with.


 * VERONIKA HYKS (NARRATOR): The Americans had as little information to work with as had the British. They were desperate for hard facts. To get them a team of American experts flew to Britain in 1944 to find out what Miles Aircraft were up to.


 * DENNIS BANCROFT: The idea was that they had decided that it was a good idea to make a supersonic aeroplane, and they had heard that we were making one. So, they came over to England with the idea that they would have all the information that we had accumulated, the idea being that a fortnight later, we would go to America and they would give us all the information the Americans had got. But after the Americans had got the information, taken the drawings away, within a fortnight, when we were trying to arrange the visit, they just said, "Sorry. Secrecy. The Pentagon says you can't."


 * VERONIKA HYKS (NARRATOR): The race was hotting up. If the Americans were months behind the British, they were years adrift of the Germans. By 1944 Germany already had a vehicle that could travel faster than sound: the V2 rocket.

So it's clear that Hallion is wrong to claim that, "The video suggests that there was a transfer from the Miles M.52 effort into the XS-1," on the grounds of timing - XS-1 being in the the air before the M.52 was cancelled. In fact, the original version of the programme makes it clear that Bell had access to all of Miles's work at the time of their visit in 1944, which was well before the M.52 was cancelled, and obviously long before the XS-1 was even initiated, let alone had an aircraft flying.

Miles had already decided on a movable stabilizer by the time of the 1944 visit, and in fact it was being flight tested on a modified Spitfire in October and November of that year, before the idea of the XS-1 (with a conventional tail) was even first discussed in the December.

It's plainly obvious that Nova re-edited the programme to play down what may have seemed like American duplicity and to falsely suggest British sour grapes. It's notable in a wider sense that the original British version of the programme is really about the M.52, but that Nova re-edited it to tone down the British side and accentuate the American. This manifests itself in mild terms by having the Nova version open with sound-bites from mostly American contributors (5 of 7), rather than British contributors in the Secret History original (3 of 5). The latter, though, includes a telling quote from Bancroft about the M.52 cancellation that does not appear anywhere in the Nova version, i.e.: "The (British) government threw away with that decision the tremendous lead they had on supersonic flight over the whole world. It was catastrophic."

In this context, it's hard to interpret Hallion's claims that there were "flaws" and "problems" with the original Secret History version as anything other than an attempt to smear and discredit it. From his reply it's obvious that he'd seen both versions, but chose to misrepresent the British original and endorse the American re-editing/re-narration. Contrary to what he implies, there were two substantial transfers of information from Miles to Bell, the first in 1944 (which should have been reciprocated, but wasn't), and the second in 1946. Stressing, as he does, that the latter had no effect on the XS-1 programme when neglecting to mention the former is grossly misleading.

I am therefore deleting the views attributed to Hallion, as they are clearly unreliable. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems the above is not enough, but to reiterate:
 * * The original British documentary is clear that there were two transfers of Miles data, design details, etc., one in 1944 before the XS-1 project was initiated and when a movable horizontal stabilizer had was already part of the M.52 design, and the second in 1946 after the M.52 was cancelled. The British documentary is a reliable source for the 1944 visit and transfer.
 * * The American version of the documentary puts a different slant on the 1944 visit, but still includes Bancroft's description of what actually happened.
 * * Hallion unjustifiably slurs the British version, and suggests that the only transfer of Miles data, etc., was in 1946. This is plainly false, and so cannot be considered a reliable source.
 * * Hallion's comments about the documentary and the events in question are therefore compromised by his distortion and willful omission of pertinent information. He discounts something that actually happened in 1944 by pretending that it only happened in 1946. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Smithsonian has released a bunch of images of Glamorous Glennis as CC0
see:


 * https://www.si.edu/object/nasm_A19510007000

©Geni (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

conversion of the X-1's horizontal tail to all-moving (or "all-flying")
Where does this claim come from? According to Meeting the Challenge of Supersonic Flight p.9 the decision to use adjustable horizontal stabilizer was made on 13-14 Dec 1944 conference at Langley, 3 months before the contract to build the planes was officially signed with Bell. I dunno if there are primary sources to this (the author provides several sources for the entire paragraph, including some memos that I don't think are available on-line) but there are photos of X-1's under construction (!) that clearly show a cut-out in the vertical stabilizer for movable horizontal fins already present at this stage. I could only find this crappy version on-line but there is a photo of all three planes under construction in Aerofax Datagraph 3: Bell X-1 Variants on p. 1. So it seems to me that X-1 was never converted to an all-moving tail (which we know wasn't even a true all-moving tail, it was merely an adjustable stabilizer, in use since at least 1930 starting with Taylor E-2), it was supposed to have this design from day one. 2A02:A311:165:9900:FDCD:6F58:F97B:635F (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * First Supersonic Flight 1997 Issue-32c.jpg