Consensus seems to be that it has potential, but was a little disappointing given the hype. Seems like it can be built into a fantastic model, but with a little more work than a Tamigawa – main problems are fit around the engines and the nose tilt mechanism is gimmicky and too weak to work well without breaking.

This may not sit comfortably with a lot of people, but Miles Aircraft were just not up to the task.

I’m not sure this is necessarily true… Miles had a number of very successful projects, including some very innovative ones, under their belts including the M20 which was designed, built and tested in a very short space of time, was faster than a Hurricane and had much greater range. Most of the basic and advanced trainers supplied to the RAF at the time were Miles products (Pierre Closterman noted that the Miles Master was considerably better than the T6) and they were in a position to tender for the Brabazon products. I can’t see that Miles would have been awarded the contract had they not been up to the task.

And look at Bell around the same era – their first attempt at a ‘high performance’ aircraft, the P59 Airacomet was dreadful – one test pilot described it as ‘ponderous’. It was so lacking it never saw frontline service – and yet this was the outfit which first broke the sound barrier.

Also Powerjets was a one man company ie Whittle. Now although he was undoubtedly a genius, at that time (even by his own admission) he was a burnt out man on the edge of a nervous breakdown.

This is undeniable – and I think the crux. I can’t see how the project would have been completed without Whittle – although that said, an engine had been completed and as a modification of an existing and proven design rather than an all new item was a path deliberately pursued by Whittle as the easiest way to get at the power needed to break Mach 1.

Now as for claims of near complete (or even 50%) I have my doubts. When you look at project expenditure by 1945, £73k which represent on 23% of the total projected (estimated at £323k)airframe costs and I really doubt this would have funded much actual prototype construction. I would expect at least half (and probable closer to two thirds) of the project cost to be spent to get the prototype out of the hanger doors.

The costs were of a small design team (around 40 people) and tests of the ‘Gillette Falcon’ with M52 wings and tail. The total projected costs were as I understand it £250,000 rather than £323,000. There are photographs of completed mock-ups and the accounts I have read do refer to two airframes ‘substantially complete’ although I have no evidence to hand for this.

This of course begs the question of just what did Miles spend 3 years doing? …… The X1 was flying in just 2 years…..

The Miles design team was small, and Britain had been at war for nearly four years when the project was started. I have no details of the Bell team but I am willing to bet they had a lot more resource at their disposal. Furthermore I don’t know what research Bell had to do, or whether they gambled and got their sums right more or less by chance. The Miles team used the only existing research on supersonics – i.e. bullets and shell casings – and built a flying demonstrator of the wings and tail surfaces.

I also understand that a very well known and respected aviation author has spent time in the states looking for evidence of M52 technology transfer. Despite extensive searches in the US National archives and Bell Aircraft own archive he found nothing!

No real surprise given that the data wasn’t handed to Bell until after they had completed principle design work – with conventional elevators. However, given the jury rigged nature of the X-1’s all flying tail I don’t doubt that if there was any of the Miles design in the X-1 this was it. Looking at the two designs afterwards, the M52 actually has slightly better area ruling than the X-1 – again, purely by chance.

On balance I think Ben Lockspears decision to cancel M52 was about right given the information available to him

Again, probably right but a shame nonetheless.

Had he left the Project running I think it would have certainly failed to go supersonic before the Bell X1, and may not have even flown.

Based on what? On balance I agree that it would have been a stretch to beat the X-1 into the air and even more to Mach 1. However, I can’t help feeling that the Vickers project proved that the M52 was eminently capable of flying and breaking the sound barrier. I don’t see any proof of significant mismanagement at Miles and although Whittle had left the project, the design work on the engine was done.

For me the tragedy is not that Britain was beaten to the sound barrier – I think that’s an optimistic assessment. However, had the aircraft flown the British aircraft industry could have been moved five, even ten years ahead of where it was in the mid-late 50s, certainly in terms of supersonic interceptors. I still wonder though what could have been achieved by Vickers had they been allowed to continue with the models – swept wings? delta planforms? Even a successful tail-less design? And pilotless aircraft may have been a lot more advanced than they currently are.

A major part of the Miles decision was money. The new labour government in 1946 had many things on its mind and aviation research could be seen as a luxury. As the cold war began to hot up, the need to keep in the forefront of research lead to a reappraisal.

Also I believe Frank Whittle left Power Jets at a critical stage in the programme – it was quite possibly felt that without Whittle, the programme would not work. Certainly, cancellation came only days after Whittle had left Power Jets. I think two airframes were nearing completion and the cost of going ahead with manned flights was arguably a lot less than the subsequent unmanned, radio controlled, rocket powered programme. (It was estimated at the time that completion would cost £250,000 – costs up to that point had been around £73,000, while the unmanned programme cost £500,000).

However, this programme proved the effectiveness of the M52 layout. One source I’ve read says the rocket powered model flew in October 1947, one month before the X-1 broke Mach 1. The RAE report on these trials was dated 1950.

The official reason for the cancellation was cost. (source: Mike Hirst, article based on lecture given to Royal Aeronautical Soc)

I’m sure I remember reading an account of the early flights of the X-1 by Chuck Yeager. According to this account, the aircraft was first flown without the all-flying tail and was nigh-on uncontrollable. It was only then that the all moving surfaces were ‘jury rigged’ to the aircraft and this enabled Yeager to break the sound barrier in a shallow dive while retaining control.

If this is the case, it bears out the idea that the all-flying tail was not part of the existing design of the X-1, and makes it look like the research came from elsewhere. In fact the account made it sound like the all flying tail was a last throw of the dice to see if the X-1 could be controlled at all in transonic conditions.

Obviously I can’t point to this account (does it sound familiar to anyone else?) and it certainly doesn’t say that the research came from Miles. However it does seem like it wasn’t taken seriously until serious stability issues had come to light after the aircraft had already been flown. Could it be that after the initial problems, Bell engineers went looking through the Miles research for leads to a solution?

Someone on PPrune reckons Airfix are going to release a 1/72nd scale Nimrod and a range of 1/48th scale Canberras next year. Anyone know anything more? While I’m at it, if you could choose just one new kit (anything) for next year, what would it be? How about a 1/72nd DH Sea Hornet? Short “Empire” boat? Supermarine Swift?

Try looking on the airfix.co.uk forum – the ‘official airfix messages’ folder has full updates on this.

Hannants are taking pre-orders for the Nimrod which is reckoned to be a limited run and likely to cost around £38.99

There is also the issue that the Navy might well be a lot more likely to be able to find someone sufficiently capable to do the job. As far as the electorate replacing failing governments, there is the pertinent question of will any of the alternatives do the job any better?

“Repeat please!”

TWO…. THREE… ZERO….!!!

Thanks for the pics. I was only asking about this a couple of weeks ago and I think the old threads on this subject must have been archived.

Resourceful use of the available airframes anyway.