Talk:Miles M.52

Comments
It's hardly fair to remove the "anti-labour" bias. I'm a canuck who could care less for UK politics. More to the point, it is absolutely the case that the labour govornments of the immediate post-war and then late 1950's are responsible for the cancellation of the vast majority of the UK's aerospace projects. Most notable is Duncan Sandys 1957 decision to cancel _all_ manned aircraft, sparing only the TSR.2 (for a few years). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maury Markowitz (talk • contribs) 02:59, 18 June 2003 (UTC)


 * Eh? In 1957 the Tories were in power.  Also how accurate would it be to suggest that both TSR-2 and Avro Arrow were cancelled due to US bullying of the respective governments? - User:gcarty —Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 26 June 2003 (UTC)


 * At the time of the M.52's cancellation the Cold War had not yet begun and I suspect that the people involved in the cancellation simply did not see the significance of what the aeroplane was intended for. In addition, the Second World War had just ended and I suspect that many in the then-new government had simply had enough of such things and all that they stood for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of the "Early Development" section there is the statement "A major impediment to early transonic flight was control reversal, the phenomenon which caused flight inputs (stick, rudder) to switch direction at high speed" which I feel is at best misleading if not wholly inaccurate. The phenomenon of control reversal certainly exists - it is the aeroelastic effect where movement of a control surface (aileron, elevator, rudder etc) twists the main surface (wing, tail, fin etc) such that its angle of attack changes in the opposite direction. Essentially the control surface acts like a control tab. This can be observed in many aircraft over a range of speeds and is not an issue specific to transonic/supersonic flight (it is the reason for the use of spoiler-based roll control and the inboard ailerons of the F-100 Super Sabre for example). Sadly a myth emerged, perpetuated by the 1952 film "Breaking the Sound Barrier, that the control problems experienced in transonic dives were literally due to the controls reversing direction - this was not true. Some control reversal may have been experienced, but the actual problem was the high control forces (caused by the shocks generated by the control surface hinge gaps) rendering the controls immovable. This occurred at the same time as the aeroplane passed through Mcrit, causing a large nose-down trim change. So the pilot would pull back to oppose the trim change but observe an increasing nose-down response.

So I feel we should either remove the reference to control reversal completely or replace it with a more detailed discussion of the effects of transonic CP shift and shocks increasing the control forces.Peter Rieden (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources and missing data
I'd like to remove the template at the bottom of the page, for having zero data. Additionally, some of the points mentioned in the article ("the US reneged on the agreement...", "obtained a speed of Mach 1.5...") have no sources attributed. I would like to change the "obtained speed" to "observed speed" as this was unmanned flight, and the aircraft was not recovered. The former I would like to eliminate, stating only that data was not provided by the Americans, as nothing shows a "reneg"ing of the agreement. Avriette 20:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you do a little research into the subject using non US sources - there is little doubt that Renege is the correct term to use. That there was a technology sharing agreement, and that  after recieving British research the US government declined to share are matters of record...  Sounds like reneging on a deal to me.  84.92.80.169 17:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The co-operation involved visits between teams on both sides of the Atlantic. The US team visited the UK team and received the data on the M.52, but when the UK team was due to visit the US, the US for whatever reason cancelled the visit.


 * Even if the M.52 had flown just after the Bell X-1 it would have still been the first jet powered aircraft to exceed Mach 1, as the Bell machine was rocket-powered, the US at the time not being able to develop a jet engine of the necessary power.


 * Incidently, the 'all-flying' tailplane wasn't actually new, some WW I aircraft such as IIRC the Fokker Eindekker and Morane-Saulnier N had used them, as did aircraft such as the Avro 504 and Fokker Triplane use the equivalent all-flying rudder, however the Miles M.52 was the first design to feature such a tailplane to nullify the effects of the shock wave as it moved aft during transonic flight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.250.73 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * According to this: one M.52 was completed and used for static tests where it was tested to destruction. The cancellation came when the second aircraft was almost complete.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Subsequent work
"..instead of diving into the sea as planned, the model ignored radio commands and was last observed (on radar) heading out into the Atlantic." Surely this implies that the rocket took a conscious decision to 'ignore' radio commands? A better wording might be "...the model failed to respond to radio commands.."


 * I don't have a solid source on this, but my understanding from previous documentaries is slightly different - that it was commanded to perform a very sharp turn that was intended to cause it to break up. However, the airframe unexpectedly survived the turn and was last seen heading out to sea. Eftpotrm 11:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Faster than Sound
Here is a quote. It may be controversial, it still represents a valid reference source. STACY KEACH: For 50 years, the cancellation of the M-52 has been the subject of argument and secrecy. Ben Lockspieser was the civil servant who abandoned the project. He said it was too dangerous. The reasons why he came to this decision are only now becoming clear. At the end of the war, Lockspieser accompanied a number of British and American scientists who visited a secret aircraft research laboratory near Munich in Germany. All that remains today is the blocked-up entrance. But some of Germany's most talented aircraft designers once worked here—on designs that convinced Lockspieser the M-52 would never break the sound barrier. Bzuk 03:45 7 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Actually television documentaries are not reliable reference sources on anything. The actual reason for the cancellation of the Miles M.52 were made clear in "Project Cancelled" by Derek Woods. They were that Britain was utterly bankrupt post WW2 and couldn't afford the program, and Barnes Wallis convinced the Government that the research could be acrried out better and less expensively using unmanned, rocket-powered scale models. Unfortunately, all the available research money was spend trying to get the models to work and none was left for research.  The comment about German swept wing research is purely speculative and has been deleted.
 * Please note that television and motion picture documentaries are veted and go through a thorough "author and title" search conducted by not only researchers but also by legal authorities. Your "broad" statement on documentaries is simply your point of view and should be substantiated if you wish it to be taken seriously. Also, unsigned comments or comments placed under an anonymous userid do not lead credence to your arguments. Bzuk 14:45 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Bzuk 13:45 23 April 2007 (UTC).

The above is a deliberate lie and a libel. I did not remove any part of anybody elses posting.

I demand an immediate and unconditonal apology

Again I come across a post by this anonymous user calling a wikipedia author a liar. This is personal attack #2, and I'm only on the second or third link of this editor's contributions list. To make matters worse, it then goes on to make a legal comment, which is another violation of official policy.

To this user, whoever you are: adding material to the wikipedia is important, especially if, as you claim, the existing material is wrong. However you are unlikely to convince anyone of this if you go around insulting everyone and threatening them or making demands. In this case you will likely find your additional unceremoniously removed, and your ability to edit blocks.

If you have something to add, try doing so without calling us liars simply because we disagree with you.

Maury 16:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, this is a rather different case. You and I have a specific disagreement over sources of data which I am sure we can thresh out in time. However, Bzuk accused me of deleting comments made on this page; an accusation which is completely untrue. I did delete a small section in the article and replaced it with information from "Project Cancelled" but I have deleted nothing on the discussion page nor would I consider doing so. His accusation is, therefore, false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.37.62.194 (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Well if the two cases are so completely different, how is it that your response in both cases was to start calling people liars? Really, do you think we're going successfully "thresh out in time" some sort of agreeable position after you called me a liar? No really, I'm astonished by your behavior. And then to go around demanding an apology.... where's your apology to me? Maury 18:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology
The above editor 69.37.62.194 is entirely correct and I attribute the lost section to an editing error on my part. I was going to reference the quote from the earlier comment and had moved my editing to an off-site MS Word document which I then edited and then proceeded to erase my own comment in editing. I then saw his note that "The comment about German swept wing research is purely speculative and has been deleted." and mistakingly assumed that he had made the deletion. In reviewing my own stupidity, I found the MS Word file and then compared it to the history file to see where I had made the mistake. The only thing I can say in my defence is that I had actually been commenting about a "Fokker" discussion page as well and had somehow transposed the commentary to this page. Again, my apologies. IMHO, I am a dunce at times and need a dose of humility which I accept. Comment also posted on affected editor's talk page.Bzuk 18:14, 23 2007 (UTC).

Your gracious and kindly apology is gratefully accepted. In turn, I apologize for jumping at you and my excessive unpleasantness over a relatively minor issue. Might I respectfully suggest that we put this unfortunate misunderstanding behind us and continue to trade information for the benefit of all the readers. With sincere thanks for your quick response.

Origin of 1000 mph requirement
It is amazing the effect that a single character typographical error can have. I understand that:

The 1000 mph requirement resulted from an intercepted Enigma transmission about the Me 262 quoting its maximum speed as 1000 kph i.e. subsonic, that was typo'd or mistranslated as 1000 mph i.e. supersonic. Faced with this amazing requirement, the Miles designers realised that they would have to throw away everything they knew about aircraft design and start from scratch, beginning with information about the stability of supersonic bullets and shells, hence the pointed nose and sharp wing leadind edges. In addition to the all-moving tailplane, already mentioned, the Miles experiments included fitting the wings on a Miles trainer back-to-front to test the effect of sharp leading edges on take off and landing.

Should this info be worked into the article? GilesW 14:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! If you can get some external reference for this, YES, please add it. I think it's a wonderful little bit of history. Maury 22:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I just have found a source for the 1000kph/mph typo, see . The first speaker was a test pilot who could have flown the M.52. GilesW (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That would have been Eric "Winkle" Brown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.30 (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

IT WASN'T IN RESPONSE to the ME 262's specification, apparently, British intelligence found out that a German aircraft was being developed to meet the German 3 x 1,000 requirement (1,000 kilometer range, at 1,000 kph carrying a 1,000 lb bomb). The date and timing would suggest that the M.52 was supposed to compete with the Ho. 229 (mistranslating "kph" into "mph" of course). The likely reason the program was cancelled was that it was simply too expensive and no longer required, so, rather than waste the data, the information was given to the Americans to help with the Bell X-1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.172.21 (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for Cancellation...
I don't pretend any expertise in this, but my own bit of research turned up this page, which mentions a report by Dennis Bancroft, Chief Aerodynamicist at Miles Aircraft, theorising about the reasons for cancellation. --Ndaisley (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * IIRC, the cancellation was influenced by the death of Geoffrey de Havilland, Jr. in the DH 108, and Ben Lockspeiser, the civil servant responsible for the cancellation, was regarded as a decent and humane man who thought that breaking the sound barrier and the M.52 project itself simply wasn't worth any further risk to a pilot's life. The war had just ended with millions dead, and IIARC, Lockspeiser said that 'he hadn't the heart to ask any pilot to fly it'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The M.52 was cancelled in February 1946. But the project and its cancellation were only made public in September, around the time of Geoffrey de Havilland's death, which may be why people connect the two. In reality it seems to have been simply an ill-informed cost-cutting decision: Lockspeiser and government ministers over-estimated the difficulty of breaking the sound barrier and under-estimated the investment value of the M.52, since it would have given the British aircraft industry an important technical lead -- the Americans were nowhere near a turbojet aircraft that could break Mach 1 in level flight, and the M.52 would probably have done this well before Chuck Yeager's rocket stunt. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The above statement / comment is pure speculation, and quite insulting at that. "May be" and "seems to have been" and "probably" and ...  come on.  "Chuck Yeager's rocket stunt".  Really?  The fact is this:  The British had a partially complete prototype.  That is all that was built.  It never flew.  The program was cancelled for unknown reason(s).  We will never know why.  And no one will ever know if it could or would have broken the "sound barrier".  What we DO know is that Chuck Yeager was the first man to fly an aircraft beyond the speed of sound - and live to tell about it - in the Bell X1.  Those are facts.  They are beyond dispute, and they are not dependent on hearsay, conjecture or any other wishful thinking.  Wikipedia is not the place for speculation.  It is a place for facts that can be proven.  Could have, should have, might have been...  those terms are fine for novels.  The Miles M.52 was never built, and therefore, did not set any records.  Again, just a fact.  Thank you and Good Night. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Revision
I have rationalised the info about the Gillette Falcon, putting it into the new "testing" section. I have edited the info to bring it (mostly) into line with info in the Don Brown Miles book (ist edition) and the Aeroplane Spotter (AS) article (both cited in the article).

My library cannot get me a copy of the Peter Amos 2nd edition of the Miles book. Is it significantly better on the M.52 than the 1st edition?

Neither of those sources support the assertion that standard wings were fitted to the Falcon back to front to test sharp leading edges, so I have omitted this. Can it be substantiated from a reliable source?

Can anyone substantiate the info about stainless steel? This contradicts the AS article, which says "high tensile steel structure covered with high-duty alloy plating" (meaning aluminium alloy). GilesW (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Specification
In modern terminology, I think that "|type of jet=turbojet (fitted with augmentor and afterburner)"

should read "|type of jet=turbofan with afterburner." See "Design and Development" section of article. Any comments? GilesW (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nowadays it would technically probably be called an afterburning turbofan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.250.73 (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the sectional drawings of M.52 in the 1946 Flight article, it does not look as if a compressor stage or anything else was to be added to the basic engine, so it would not have been a turbofan. It shows air ducts from the intake past the engine to the reheat, the additional air being driven by ram effect not a compressor, making it a hybrid turbojet-ramjet - not a turbofan with reheat. GilesW (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The W.2/700 was trialled with both reheat (on a Meteor) and with an aft-ducted fan, although I don't know if the latter was flown or just run on a test-bed, presumably both trials being intended for the M.52 project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.255 (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Me 163A or Me 262?
The specified climb performance 36,000 ft/1.5 mins is compatible with the rate of climb of the Me 163 rocket, but very much quicker than the Me 262 jet. Therefore it appears that the intercepted report concerned (only) the Me 163A as mentioned by Eric Brown in the Discussion video. Can anyone verify this? GilesW (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Construction
In the absence of a reliable citation I propose to replace this: "Supersonic heating was not completely understood at the time, so the M.52 was built using stainless steel rather than the more common duraluminum." With something like this: "To provide sufficient strength the M.52 design featured a high tensile steel structure covered with high-duty aluminium alloy plating ".GilesW (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Power operated stabilator
I read somewhere (I do not know where) that a key feature of the M.52 was that its stabilator or 'flying tail' was to be power operated, so that aerodynamic forces could not be fed back to the pilot and override the pilot's control inputs as happened with conventional tails. AFAIK this feature was incorporated into the specification of the M.52 (and thence the X-1). Has anyone access to the M.52 spec itself, or coroborating info? GilesW (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference found and article edited. GilesW (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the page number? of the book you are using that has the information. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This info is given in the M.52 chapter of Miles Aircraft since 1925 by Don Brown, on pages 274 - 276. GilesW (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I still find the X-1 connection a bit dubious, as the X-1 didn't originally have a "flying tail". A trimmable stabilizer was added to the X-1 later, but this was not unique to the M.52 at that time, as US designs had them before that time. We need a reliable source that directly says that the idea for the X-1's trimmable stabilizer as a solution to the came from the M.52, otherwise its synthesis/OR. - BilCat (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated by Don Brown, the power operated flying tail that could not override the pilot's control input was a key feature of the M.52 design that was used in the X-1, and that "Bell engineers and designers, at the insistence of the Ministry, had access to all the drawings, calculations and design data relating to the M.52." Elsewhere it is explained in more detail that this capability was incorporated into the X-1 structure, but at first a conventional elevator was used, with the usual loss of control at high speeds. A Bell engineer remembered that Miles had emphasised the importance of the all moving tail during their meetings, so they reconfigured the X-1 tail sucessfully. GilesW (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly when this occurred, but the XP-42 at one point was fitted with a stabilator — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.226.76 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Re Bell X-1
Captain Brown RN was the pilot designate for the M.52 and wrote a book, Miles M.52, Gateway To Supersonic Flight. He makes a number of claims in his book regarding the X-1.

To wit, quote #1: The X-1 had a tailplane adjustable in incidence for trim purposes, with a conventional trailing edge elevator.

My comment: Correct. The specification supplied to Bell specified that the XS-1 be equipped with a movable horizontal stabilizer to provide pitch (nose up or down) control when shock waves made the elevators ineffective and spelled out also the rate of movement (one degree/second). Captain Brown also notes the X-1 as built "incorporated none of the design features of the Miles M.52."

Quote #2: Yeager lost control when flying at Mach 0.94 ... . Both he and the engineers thought that was the end of the road. Magically a solution was provided by Bell almost instantaneously, in the form of a "field fix" variation of the "flying tail" encountered on the U.K. visit to Miles. Bell's control solution was to use the pre-existing tailplane trimmer to modify the incidence of the tailplane in flight, by means of a switch in the cockpit. Two flights after evaluating their ad hoc "flying tail," Yeager attained supersonic flight.

My comment: Not so. Bell did not change anything; see comment to quote #1. Yeager has always given the project flight engineer Jack Ridley the credit with coming up with the idea to use the tailplane trim as a means of pitch control during the period when the elevator lost effectiveness. Ridley, however, just had his finger on the pulse with respect to the papers crossing his desk, IMHO. The ability to control pitch with stabilizer in the transonic regime was investigated by Axel T. Mattson in his paper NACA RM No. L7A03 "FORCE AND LONGITUDINAL CONTROL CHARACTERJSTICS OF A 1/16-SCALE MODEL OF THE BELL XS-1 TRANSONIC RESEARCH AIRPLANE AT HIGH MACH NUMBERS" (May 21, 1947).

Quote #3: When the X-1 ran into compressibility problems in 1947 it was rescued by fitment of the "flying tail."

Quote #4: The British aviation fraternity is firmly convinced that the Bell X-1 owed its success to what the Americans gleaned from their visit to the Miles factory in Autumn 1944, and in particular what Bell learned from the M.52's "flying tail." Certainly, in spite of American protestations that they had their own original ideas on a "flying tail," there does not appear to be any solid evidence of its appearance on test before the X-1 ran into transonic trouble in 1947.

Quote #5: On seventh flight, after "flying tail" has been fitted to the X-1, Yeager attains controlled supersonic level flight, Mach 1.02.

Quote #6 (From the “Guild News”, June 2009): The Americans will not admit that the flying tail which was on the M.52 was what let the Bell X-1 break the sound barrier. Chuck Yeager had run into severe compressibility trouble at Mach .94. In fact, General Albert Boyd, head of the Flight Test Division at Wright Patterson AFB, had said, "Well, fellers, this is the end of the road." Then three days later Bell came charging down with this all-flying tail, designed by a guy who had been to Woodley and had seen the tail on the M.52. He'd done some work on it, but basically it was the M.52's tail, which he admitted more or less on his deathbed. They popped it straight onto the X-1 there and then, and it did the trick.

My comment: It's interesting how Captain Brown's narrative changes from that given in #2 to that in #6.

Yeager's flight test report following the first supersonic flight:

Date: 14 October 1947 Pilot: Capt. Charles E. Yeager Time: 14 Minutes 9th Powered Flight

1. After normal pilot entry and the subsequent climb, the XS-1 was dropped from the B-29 at 20,000' and at 250 mph IAS. This was slower than desired.

2. Immediately after drop, all four cylinders were turned on in rapid sequence, their operation stabilizing at the chamber and line pressures reported in the last flight. The ensuing climb was made at .85 - .88 Mach, and, as usual, it was necessary to change the stabilizer setting to 2 degrees nose down from its pre-drop setting of 1 degree nose down. Two cylinders were turned off between 35,000' and 40,000', but speed had increased to .92 Mach as the airplane was levelled off at 42,000'. Incidentally, during the slight pushover at this altitude, the lox line pressure dropped perhaps 40 psi, and the resultant rich mixture caused the chamber pressures to decrease slightly. The effect was only momentary, occurring at 0.6 Gs, and all pressures returned to normal at 1 G.

3. ln anticipation of the decrease in elevator effectiveness at speeds above .93 Mach, longitudinal control by means of the stabilizer was tried during the climb at .83, .88, and .92 Mach. The stabilizer was moved in increments of 1/4 - 1/3 degree and proved to be very effective; also, no change in effectiveness was noticed at the different speeds.

4. At 42,000' in approximately level flight, a third cylinder was turned on. Acceleration was rapid, and speed increased to .98 Mach. The needle of the machmeter fluctuated at this reading momentarily, then passed off the scale. Assuming that the off-scale reading remained linear, it is estimated that 1.05 Mach was attained at this time. Approximately 30% of fuel and lox remained when this speed was reached and the motor was turned off.

5. While the usual light buffet and instability characteristics were encountered in the .88 - .90 Mach range and elevator effectiveness was very greatly decreased at .94 Mach, stability about all three axes was good as speed increased and elevator effectiveness was regained above .97 Mach. As speed decreased after turning off the motor, the various phenomena occurred in reverse sequence at the usual speeds, and in addition, a slight longitudinal porpoising was noticed from .98 - .96 Mach which (was) controllable by the elevators alone. Incidentally, the stabilizer setting was not changed from its two-degree nose-down position after trial at .92 Mach.

6. After jettisoning the remaining fuel and lox, a 1 G stall was performed at 45,000'. The flight was concluded by the subsequent glide and a normal landing on the lake bed.

Yeager's presentation at the first XS-1 conference, 9 January 1948:

As the Mach number was increased from .87, the buffeting became more severe, and a nose down trim change was noted. The forces were quite light, and the movement of the control column remained the best means of indicating the trim change. At approximately .90 Mach number trim change previously mentioned reversed, and the tendency was for the nose to rise and, in the range of approximately .92 Mach number, the buffeting became quite severe.

At this point in the program it was decided from a correlation of model test data that the one degree per second actuator for the stabilizer might prove to be too slow for proper control during subsequent flights, and an interruption in the program was made to install a faster motor. In the first flight after the new stabilizer actuator was installed, the Mach number was increased to .94. At this point, the trim change again reversed to a nose-down tendency, but it was still easily controllable and approximately 3degree of up elevator provided level flight. From .94 to .96. the elevators and rudder became increasingly ineffective until, at the latter figure, they could be moved throughout their range of displacement with very slight response from the aircraft. At approximately .95, the buffeting decreased rapidly and became non existent at .96.

Up to this time a stabilizer setting of 2degree leading edge up was used in all of the high-speed test runs. The next flight was therefore initiated to investigate the effectiveness of control by the stabilizer at the higher speeds above .96 since the setting had only been varied in climbs up to this time. As the speed was increased on this flight, the stabilizer was changed to 1degree leading edge up and returned to 2degree leading edge up successively at .84, .88, and .95 Mach numbers. The acceleration experienced in the cockpit was approximately the same for all speeds, and it was decided that the stabilizer was still effective, even though the elevator and rudder had lost their effectiveness. The ailerons remained effective throughout the range. With the stabilizer setting of 2degree, the speed was allowed to increase to approximately .98 to .99 Mach number, where elevator and rudder effectiveness were regained and the airplane seemed to smooth out to normal flying characteristics. This development lent added confidence, and the airplane was allowed to continue to accelerate until an indication of 1.02 on the cockpit Mach meter was obtained. At this indication, the meter momentarily stopped and then jumped to 1.06, and this hesitation was assumed to be caused by the effect of shock waves on the static source. At this time the power units were cut and the airplane allowed to decelerate back to the subsonic flight condition.

My comment: Of particular note is that the program was interrupted in order to install a faster trim motor, not to install a "flying tail," as insisted by Captain Brown. The X-1 retained the stabilizer/elevator system as spelled out by Captain Brown in quote #1 throughout its life and was never modified for the supersonic flight, as a reading of Yeager's reports above confirms.

Captain Brown, in his book, calls the M.52 tail a "flying tail," and it was what would be called a "slab" today, a unitary piece with no separate stabilizer/elevator. Here is where I feel the problem lies. NASA and Yeager, even to this day, refer to the X-1 trimmable stabilizer and elevator setup as a, you guessed it, "flying tail." Two contemporaneous aircraft, the D558 and the F-86A, both had the same setup as the X-1 (trimmable tailplane with elevator). It seems to me to be a case of two countries separated by a common language. Has Captain Brown merely misunderstood the U.S.A.'s use of terminology? I can think of no other explanation, because the plain fact is, the X-1 tail never underwent modification from the day it was built, other than the trim motor.

It would be interesting to have interviewed Captain Brown to gain an insight into why he had the idea that the X-1 tail was modified. babraham AT netspace.net.au — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.7.51.96 (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Bell and Miles
There is no evidence that Bell used Miles powered tail. As a matter of fact Lockheed and other US companies had filed numerous patents had patents on moving tails powered tails dating back to the early forty. Please also keep in mind that the wright brother had a movable tail. This whole page is nothing more than a POV.. The M.52 never flew. 8 models and only 3 were successful. I suggest you go to you tube and listen to Gen Yeager described how they solved the problem. I can also tell you it wasn't Mr Miles models.. Also the comments about the USA not sharing the technology, might be true, but please also add to this page the WHY.... Britain had some major spy defections latde 40 early 50's and they had just sold Jet technology to the USSR.... Klimov VK-1 version of the British Nene jet engine, this design became the mass-produced MiG-15, which first flew on December 31, 1948, Jacob805 19:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI the Cold War had not yet started when Britain sold the Rolls-Royce Derwent and Rolls-Royce Nene to the Soviet Union and what Britain did with their technology was none of the US' business. BTW, the British also sold the Nene to the US where it was produced by P&W as the "J42".


 * What the RAE and Miles did was to prove that the powered all-moving tail was the solution to the control problem at, and around, Mach 1.


 * Prior to this time there were no supersonic wind tunnels outside Germany and so the only way to gain data on high speed flight was to fly a full-size aeroplane as fast as one could. The RAE had an advantage in having the Spitfire, which could be controlled safely in dives up to Mach 0.89, far faster than any other aeroplane flying.
 * That's not entirely true, there were various small supersonic tunnels developed but problems usually persisted in being able to determine data downstream of the shockwave (they'd bounce off the walls) and invalidate everything downstream. These devices were used to measure the aerodynamics of bodies of revolution.  This was even used for testing the Miles M.52. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.226.76 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * FYI, the fastest speed recorded in a dive for a Spitfire was 609 mph, faster than any of the first generation straight-wing jets. Table of data for Spitfire RAE high speed dives in which a TAS of 606 mph, and Mach M = 0.891 was measured, in Report No. Aero 1906 here: The dive angle was 46.2 degrees at this speed. 609 mph TAS was reached slightly after this at 25,520 ft, albeit at a lower Mach number - M = 0.880.


 * A powered all-moving tail was also flown on a modified Spitfire.
 * It was dived to Mach 0.92 by S/Ldr. Tony Martindale. Interestingly, there was one flight in 1952 where a Spitfire PR.XIX clocked Mach 0.94 (presumably without a stabilator) during atmospheric testing that went awry as the pilot was flying at very high altitude and got a stall warning and pitched over, at which point the aircraft was kept in the dive a little too long (no idea how fast it would accelerate in such thin air) and it soon was in trans-sonic effects and once the pilot realized it, he started frantically trying to pull out and succeeded fortunately.  After everything was done, they analyzed the data, as well as the atmospheric data and confirmed Mach 0.94.  For a plane built in WWII, it might very well have had the highest dive speed (though supposedly an Me-262 managed to go supersonic in 1945)


 * Oh, BTW, the Soviets copied the Derwent and Nene without UK permission. One of the conditions by which the UK supplied the engines to the Soviets was that the Soviets not copy them. The Soviets went back on that agreement.


 * I don't quite know why the all-moving tail is spoken-of in relation to the Bell X-1, as mentioned above the aircraft actually had a trimm-able conventional tailplane operated by an electric screw jack. The all-moving tail was however later used in US aircraft such as the F-86G and F-100 and others before UK aircraft such as the Swift and Hunter had them, the English Electric P.1 design of 1949-1950 however had one before all of the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.150 (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the majority of this article is based on the memories and recollections of one man who wrote a book. This man, a captain Brown I believe, is not a reliable source for an entire article without some 3rd party confirmation - since he was quite obviously an interested party in this Miles vs Bell / X1 controversy. I am doubtful of many of the claims as currently written in this article, and I would like to see an independent reviewer who has expertise in this subject go over this article and do some real fact-checking. Far too much sole-source anecdotal story telling here. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC) Eric Brown is rather more than "some man who wrote a book2 Maybe he does have skin in the game but he is a reliable primary source.TheLongTone (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Augmentor Fan & Inlet Performance
In Captain Eric Brown's book on the Miles M.52, he did make several mentions of a modified Whittle W.2/700 with high-temperature alloy turbine-blades as well as a "No.4 Augmentor" which appeared to be a type of aft-driven fan coupled to an afterburner that was either single or twin-staged. It was stated that the design produced substantial amounts of thrust, and while thrust/drag was such that it would need a shallow dive to get through Mach 1.0 - 1.2, once up to Mach 1.3 the thrust of the engine would actually increase out of proportion with the aircraft's drag due to the effects of ram compression. From what appeared to be the case, he stated that the aircraft would basically accelerate to destruction of either the engine, aircraft, or both if the pilot didn't throttle back (or climb).

The basic shape of the plane was based on that of a 0.50 BMG bullet, and the inlet might have initially been based on a shape that was as close to a bullet as possible instead of a pitot-type inlet: Regardless, it would have provided a substantial ram-compression effect and plans were made for a movable-spike, variable geometry air-passages in the engine or inlet duct, as well as a modified fixed-spike aimed at better pressure recovery. Brown speculated that design probably would have settled on a fixed-spike of proper aerodynamic design if I recall.

What I am fascinated by is that while there are aircraft who's inlets produce greater thrust with speed than the drag produced at the same speed, allowing for acceleration, often the inlet shock-recovery falls off with increasing mach-number, and that usually results in reduction in net-thrust until eventually thrust/drag equal each other after a few tenths of a mach number.

I'm curious if anybody has further data or a diagram of the No.4 augmenter. I'm mostly curious how it would compare to a gas-turbine of the 1950's or 1960's (i.e. cutaways of these engines are available)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.226.76 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Miles M.52. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724145755/http://www.space.co.uk/DataBank/VideoGallery/VideoPlayer/tabid/384/VideoId/33/Test-Pilot-Discussion.aspx to http://www.space.co.uk/DataBank/VideoGallery/VideoPlayer/tabid/384/VideoId/33/Test-Pilot-Discussion.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724145755/http://www.space.co.uk/DataBank/VideoGallery/VideoPlayer/tabid/384/VideoId/33/Test-Pilot-Discussion.aspx to http://www.space.co.uk/DataBank/VideoGallery/VideoPlayer/tabid/384/VideoId/33/Test-Pilot-Discussion.aspx
 * Added tag to http://home.comcast.net/~aero51/html/exhibits/m52.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Reheat or turbofan?
It is not "simpler" to replace the correct description of an early reheat system with some sort of 'turbofan'! Any explanation? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)