Why did Miles M100 Student loose to Jet Provost ?

Aaaah… yes but did the wings stay on? 😀

On D-21 not all the way. It burned up in the atmosphere.

Sheer power alone doesn’t really mean anything…power to weight ratio is already an indicator or something.

Helwan HA-300 went mach 2.1 with just 48 kN. Folland Gnat exceed mach 1 in a dive an had just 20.9 kN thrust.

SS1 went mach 3+ at 70-80 kN. Best of all D-21 went mach 3.5 with 6.67 kN.

Aaaah… yes but did the wings stay on? 😀

In my (uninformed) opinion even the later JP/Strikemaster was not exactly overendowed in the power stakes. As an unrelated topic how do Late Mk JPs and Strikemasters compare against things like the Cessna T37 and MB326?

The JP4 had the best power/weight ratio…thus was very popular 😀 and their fatigue life was used up pretty quickly !!

The JP3 of course was well known for having a ‘Volume Control’ instead of a throttle 😀

In my (uninformed) opinion even the later JP/Strikemaster was not exactly overendowed in the power stakes. As an unrelated topic how do Late Mk JPs and Strikemasters compare against things like the Cessna T37 and MB326?

Sheer power alone doesn’t really mean anything…power to weight ratio is already an indicator or something.

Helwan HA-300 went mach 2.1 with just 48 kN. Folland Gnat exceed mach 1 in a dive an had just 20.9 kN thrust.

SS1 went mach 3+ at 70-80 kN. Best of all D-21 went mach 3.5 with 6.67 kN.

In my (uninformed) opinion even the later JP/Strikemaster was not exactly overendowed in the power stakes. As an unrelated topic how do Late Mk JPs and Strikemasters compare against things like the Cessna T37 and MB326?

On a lighter note :-

Because it crossed the road stuck to the chickens foot :highly_amused: meanwhile the provosts flew off into history 😀

Seconded, alertken. That does indeed not only answer the question but puts a good amount of flesh on the whole story. Thank you.

I wonder if I missunderstood this wiki text:

The Miles M.100 Student was built as a lightweight trainer as a private venture by F.G. and George Miles with development started in 1953. Although not specifically a Miles product, it was promoted as a Royal Air Force trainer but failed to enter production.

Design and development[edit]

The Miles Student at Coventry airport in 1961 when owned by F.G. Miles Engineering
Building on the company’s experience with the M.77 “Sparrowjet”, the M.100 Student was a two-seat, side-by-side, all-metal jet trainer. The M.100 prototype was powered by a 400 kgf (882 lb) thrust Turbomeca Marbore turbojet and flew for the first time on 15 May 1957. Miles had hoped to secure an RAF order, but the contract went to the Jet Provost. The Student was subsequently proposed for several training programmes, but without success.

Seconded, alertken. That does indeed not only answer the question but puts a good amount of flesh on the whole story. Thank you.

So the exact A to OP’s Q is that Student did not lose to JP …

Nice analysis.

Regards

So the exact A to OP’s Q is that Student did not lose to JP – they never competed because first course on JP T.1 began 8/55, while Student first flew 5/57. But OP will not be happy there because that does not explain staying with JP on through T.5. We must look at what JP was seen to be for.

Post WW2, UK had not done trainers well: Prentice, Athena, Balliol…my case rests. We paid money (discounted price and on a loan) to keep swathes of Harvards: SAAF flew theirs on for another half century but we junked ours for (piston) Provost. We paid money to deploy Meteor T.7 and Vampire T.11 with very proven engine types, then put them out to grass, young and healthy, displaced, like new Provost T.1, by JP T.3 needing development of a once-expendable engine to withstand abuse by P/O Prune. Why did we do those things? US $-aid lapsed 30/6/54, leaving us to self-finance Defence: clearly CAS put priority on Medium Bombers, not trainers.

Well, quite. Airlines did not let 20-year olds do anything with their Dakotas except handle the honey cart. All Commercial Pilots were officer-class. RAF in 1954 had NCO combat pilots and was planning to generate Deterrent Weapon Systems from conscript erks and sparks. Times must change.

1/53-1/56 CAS Dickson sold to Ministers a wholly-Regular RAF, wholly-officer pilots. So: bye bye RAuxAF (next to nothing in Sandys, so beloved by conspirators, was imposed by “foolish” politicians). All-through jet pilot training (filtered on Chipmunk, but maybe not even up to first solo) was dreamt up in 1954, trialled in 1955 and selected, with JP T.3 in 1957. FTS graduates, when posted to Valiant, were being publicised as thousand-a-year men, rewarded for surviving scandalous attrition on Meteor F(T).8/T.7.

Provost in 1948 had won its competition from a field of 20 Bidders, inc. agents for imports. I know of no similar process for JP: I believe it was a Hunting inspiration to propose a simple derivative, no sweat, no drifting R&D. Jindivik was paying for the engine; Production Investment for Provost could churn out JP without drama. So, in 1957, no contest v.FG Miles’ tin shed in Shoreham. Why bother opening a competition; if won by Student, sorting out sub-contract production, including a vacuum cleaner motor? Folland had exactly the same problem with their expendable mud-mover: clearly simple variant Venom, then Hunter was sensible. Even if Student (or Gnat) had offered practical field-operational benefit (and neither did), their added pain-of-deployment was not worth diversion of scarce management resources. Why make more headaches when Javelin, Scimitar…everything, really, needed urgent attention.

Most likely it was because the Jet Provost was the better suited aeroplane from a better suited manufacturer. Having said that, was there ever any serious competition?

And I don’t think anyone has actually identified the reason behind the RAF decision to chose Percival over Miles, BEFORE the JP flew. There has been a lot of speculation but perhaps we do not know, although presumably reasons were given officially. I presume the fact that Percival was the incumbent supplier had a lot to do with it.

I’d always assumed that it was pronounced with each ‘a’ being soft – but that assumption has no evidential base. However I fear we’re becoming guilty of thread drift!

Just pronounce it how you like John :D,there were no dictionaries in the old days – which is why there are variations on surname spelling !and as I am sure you are aware – there are local variations on pronunciation anyway 😀
rgds baz

You mean you even possess the vitally useful tome on Parnall? 🙂

Yes, it was the last one I bought. For some reason I read it cover to cover. I obviously need help.

Seriously, my UK-born wife said it should be pronounced as Par-Nall..or Par-Noll…whereas I’ve always said Par-Nell. (Not that I’ve ever had need to pronounce it..by the way it’s amazing how often it doesn’t come up in conversation). Anyone know (or care) which is correct?

You mean you even possess the vitally useful tome on Parnall? 🙂

Sorry! Let me know when your copy arrives and I’ll refrain from quoting from mine in the meantime. I have to say I can’t help but be envious of someone who has a complete set of Putnam aircraft manufacturer monographs.

Credit where credit’s due – this statement effectively paraphrases what Don Brown said on the subject in his monograph on Miles Aircraft…

Don’t spoil the surprise. 🙂
After years of looking and waiting, I’ve finally ordered a copy of his Putnam Miles book. I found one that was still expensive, but not as expensive as most offered online…(about 1/2 or 2/3rds the going rate). It’s enroute from the UK… That about completes my Putnam collection of books on manufacturers.

The Museum of Berkshire Aviation website, http://home.comcast.net/~aero51/html/exhibits/student.htm says the Student “was built as a private venture and owing to the limited resources of the company its construction took a considerable time. It was May 57 before it flew, too late to be a contender for the RAF contract.”

Credit where credit’s due – this statement effectively paraphrases what Don Brown said on the subject in his monograph on Miles Aircraft, namely:

“Owing to the limited resources of the company and the fact that the Suudent was built as a private venture, its construction took a considerable time and the first flight was made by George Miles on 15 May 1957, by which date there was little chance of the Student being adopted instead of the Provost”

I found some data on the early Viper engines; http://www.airsceneuk.org.uk/hangar/2001/coventry/coventry.htm

It says Viper 3 produced 7.4 kN thrust

If Provost T1 had that engine it would indeed have been an underdog in evaluation with 0.18 kg/kg thrust to weight against 0.22 of the Miles M100