It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Comparison of Miles M.52 and Bell X-1

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
My father was on the design team for the Miles M52's wing. He had training in both structural engineering (bridges) , and supersonic airflow (internals of steam turbines used in powerplants).

The M52's wing was built as a series of cells, each of which had its own vibration frequency. It was grossly over-engineered (we know that in hindsight) from a structural viewpoint, and in combination with the notched ogive would have had no significant flutter at any speed less than that required to soften stainless steel.

Zoe E Brain


It had multiple spars (> 2) and several 'wing-boxes'?

I suppose that would be sensible for such an experimental wing.

It probably also had a lot of work done on aero-elastic effects.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Anonymous ATSThe Bell X-1 did not use any "stolen" brit supersonic technology. The 'Stabilator' was invented long before the M.52... its not a british invention..Chief Aerodynamicist Dennis Bancroft stated that the Bell Aircraft company was given access to the drawings and research on the M.52 in 1944 BEFORE design work was completed on the Bell X-1 but unfortunately his remarks do not prove accurate nor is there any evidence that the already completed X-1 design was influenced at all by the Miles .M52 data as it empennage bares no similarities whatsoever... stories that the stabilator was added after the X-1 design was completed is also false as the pivot assembly for a stabilator was already build into the X-1 original design as far back as early 44' this confirmed by the development team that installed an electric trim actuator without any knowledge of the M.52s tail design. One only has to look at the two aircraft to see there see no similarities in their control surfaces or design. The brits are very fond of quoting that "they" invented the flying tail as part of the development of the M.52..... the truth is the stabilator was in mass production on French and German aircraft as early as 1915... and 2 American designs the Curtiss XP-42, XP-55, it was already a 30 year old design when the brits claimed to have invented it.

Because the M.52 program was overreaching and doomed to failure from the very beginning... The UK lacked both the high speed aerodynamic research and the jet engine technology. The Governments very poor decision of selecting of the Miles company and Whittles PowerJets Ltd. sealed the fate of the M.52. NACA engineers saw little value in data from plane that never flew or had any chance of reaching the sound barrier. The Bell engineers predicted the possiblity, and left the option in the design of the aircraft AOA elevator trim adjustment. US Airforce test team confirmed the need... The actual stabilator design was developed by the Air Force test team.. not Bell. The Miles M.52 could never reach the sound barrier without a viable engine design, Frank Whittles failure to produce the required engine left the program with no option other than cancellation.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: barracuda7018 I spent some time in Britain.. There is the world history and always a British version of it !!!! I love how the brits persist in the myth that the Stabilator , the all- moving tailplane was invented during the Miles M.52 project lol !!! Fokker Eindecker featured a stabilator in 1915 ..Both TSR.2 and M.52 are the same compassion babble, emotional reaction of sore losers..


edit on 25-3-2016 by barracuda7018 because: (no reason given)



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join