Eric Brown

[Andrew Price 2]

Colin.

Harold Wilson has a lot to answer for - Kannex macs for one, Lady Falkender and a few extra peers?? Perhaps best not list em all though.

I would be shocked if the good Captain has not already inspected the recently launched carrier and I expect he will have been kept up to date on progress during the design and build. I would believe that he, like me, will be "confused" regarding the choice of aircraft. I suspect you would join us on that one.

My copy of Wings..... may well be the latest one. I feel a mite of research coming on.

[Colin Leighfield]

Can't beat a bit of research, never ceases to fascinate.

[Gordon Nicol]

He wrote 2 books that I have," wings on my sleve", an autobiography, and" wings of the Luftwaffe". in the later book he states he didn't fly the komet under power, but a close read of wings on my sleve gives a very detailed description of the only powered flight he made in it. he flew it when allied pilots were forbidden to, but he was a RAE test pilot and flew it before all stocks of the very dangerous fuels were destroyed

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 14/11/2014 23:00:27:then again I don't suppose you forget the day you entered Auschwitz and interviewed the male and female camp commandants or spent 30 mins chatting to Goering.

I think he's memory is better than yours then Peter! It was Bergen-Belsen not Auschwitz!

The cancelling of the M52 is I believe a bit more complex then it is often painted. Unlike the cancellation of TSR2, which was in my opinion a basically political decision, the cancellation of M52 did have a significant technical aspect which shouldn't be ignored.

The Americans, in analysing the aerodynamic research undertaken by the Germans in WWII, had discovered the work of Adolf Busemann on swept-back wings and how they delayed the onset of the critical Mach number. Robert Jones in American picked up this idea (in fact may have independently developed it) and took it further. It became rapidly obvious to everyone involved that any aircraft destined for the realm of Mach 1 and beyond simply had to have sweep-back. Indeed Boeing immediately modified the early concept design drawing of the B52 as soon as they had this information.

This data seriously undermined technical confidence in the whole M52 design - by then too far along to incorporate sweep-back - and that was, at the very least, a major contributory factor in its cancellation. You could argue that it gave the polticians the excuse they were looking for true, but that doesn't alter the basic fact that the M52 - as it stood - was not well adapted to trans-sonic flight.

BEB

 

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 15/11/2014 21:18:24

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by i12fly on 15/11/2014 00:22:18:

A truly amazing man, I attended his lecture at Old Warden a couple of years ago. He is very intelligent, graduated in German at a time when a university degree actually meant something. A true gentleman he made time to speak to everyone who wanted to talk to him, no rush, he lost most of his lunch break. it was a privilege to shake his hand

Sorry to be picky - but Eric Brown's life is remarkable enough without errors creeping in and "enhancing" it beyond the already almost unbelievable levels of achievement it actually has!

My understanding is that he did not graduate in German! He was indeed undertaking a degree in German at Edinburgh University that is correct. However he never completed it. The Second World war broke out while he was actually living in Germany on his "year out".

BEB

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Andrew Price 2]

Percy. Eric Brown mentions in Wings On My Sleeve that towed and gliding Komet flights were being carried out at around the time of his powered flight. You really could do worse than get hold of a copy of that book.

I have not read Wings of the Luftwaffe and I must admit to being confused of the apparent conflict in his accounts as highlighted Gordon. Perhaps we can ask i12fly to clear it all up for us next time he's hobnobing with aviation royalty.

[i12fly]

Well BEB, picky or not, to be more specific my copy of 'Wings on my Sleeve' says '.....I progressed to Edinburgh University in 1937 to read for an honours degree in modern languages, with German as my primary subject.' It doesn't actually say he finished the course but there is a picture of him on Graduation Day on page 2.

So is the book wrong?

At the Old Warden Aviation Lecture in November 2010, he remarked that he questioned why he had to go to help interrogate at Belsen and was told his German was better than their interpreters. The letters after his name do include an MA, though how he got the Masters I do not know.

W.o.m.S does cover flying the Komet under power page 111. (My paperback edition was published 2007)

[Peter Jenkins]

BEB - you are quite right about the concentration camp! Mea culpa.

However, Eric's book on the M52 written in association with Dennis Bancroft, the chief aerodynamicist on the project at Miles Aircraft, gives a very clear indication that they used a very sharp leading edge on the wing ("a razor sharp leading edge with a biconvex supersonic section) very like the Lockheed Starfighter which was a Mach 2+ interceptor with a straight wing with very sharp leading edge. As you know, this is a viable supersonic wing geometry as the drag from an attached shock wave is far lower than a detached shock wave The aerodynamics department at Farnborough always maintained that the aircraft's drag would not allow it to go supersonic. After the M52 project was cancelled, Barnes Wallis at Vickers was contracted to fly a series of unmanned aircraft to establish what was the art of the possible . As time was short, Wallis used the M52 scaled down to 1/3 so that it could be dropped from a Mosquito before firing the rocket motor. According to Brown, there were 9 models produced but due to various mishaps only the 9th one actually managed to fly to the end of the rocket motor burn. It reached 934 mph! Thus vindicating the M52 design.

Brown goes on to say that the M52 model remained stable throughout the subsonic, transonic and supersonic regimes and the model also established that the drag coefficients were fully 20% lower than those used by the M52 design team. Brown goes on to say that the issue of loss of control at high subsonic speeds had led to the development of an all flying tailplane since the problem was believed to lie with a shock wave sitting at the elevator hinge point. Miles tested this all flying tailplane on their test mule and it then became part of the M52. Miles also developed a pilot escape pod - unique at the time - as the only viable way for the pilot to "eject" from the M52 if he needed to.

At that stage, the British were apparently far in advance of the US supersonic work and while the American team were shown over the M52 on the return visit to the US, the Brits were never shown anything. Brown thinks this was due to embarrassment on the part of the Americans as they were so far behind the British. This, of course, is his view. However, at the time the US did not have an all flying tail design for their Mach 1 airframe design. When the M52 was cancelled, the team was told to hand over all the information to the Americans, and that's how Brown believes the Bell X1 got an all flying tailplane (or rather a lash up of one) and the X2, the pilot escape pod, all flying tail and a bi convex wing.

Brown's view is that the M52 was perfectly viable and that the main reason for cancellation was linked to a desire in the Air Ministry to make sure that Whittle did not gain huge kudos by having the first jet engine to reach 1,000 mph - the design speed for the M52. Brown thinks the issue was Whittle wanted to manufacture engines but the other engine manufacturers didn't and allowing the M52 to achieve success would allow Whittle to win this argument in public. Brown goes on to debunk all the other issues which have been advanced as the cause of cancellation such as: supersonic body shape; wing loading; climb performance; straight wing versus sweepback; political pressures and centrifugal versus axial flow jets. I suspect that the chief aerodynamicist and the deeply involved test pilot of the M52 would be well qualified to say what was not the cause of the cancellation. Intriguingly, there is nothing remaining in the official files which adequately covers the reason for the cancellation.

Oh and when Winkle spoke to us in Apr 2014, he said he was the only Allied pilot to fly a Me 163 under rocket power by dint of just getting on and doing it. He said none of the US pilots were interested in risking flying this highly dangerous aircraft. He only did it once but he did it.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Interesting i12fly - it would appear we could both be correct in a sense!

My edition of Wings on My Sleeve doesn't have that picture. The fact that he went up to Edinburgh in 1937 means he cannot of possibly graduated then - the course would be a minimum of 3 years and most probably 4 years duration - and so as I have said the war must have intervened.

But what about this picture? Well I've done a bit of an internet search to find the picture - I can only find a very small version - but in that it is clear that he is wearing the uniform of a Naval Lieutenant, possibly even a Lieutenant Commander, as I said the computer version of the photograph I found is very small and its difficult to be sure. But one thing is certain - this is much later than when he was a student at Edinburgh, probably immediately post-war. I can only assume that he was eventually awarded something like an aegrotat degree - as he would have only done, at most, 2 years of the course pre-war and at no point does he say he returned to complete it. So, as I say, in sense we are both correct - while it would appear he was awarded a degree he did not complete the programme and so could not graduate in the normal sense of that word.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 16/11/2014 01:10:44

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Mmm, not totally sure about all that Peter.

1. The Starfighter is not a very good advert for stability!

2. Just about every aircraft that has successfully flown trans-sonically has sweep-back.

3. If the M52 was such a good design and so far ahead of its time, how come its planform and general arrangement has never emerged again? I mean a good idea is a good idea - full stop. If it really was so viable someone else somewhere would have arrived at the same conclusion surely.

BEB

[Colin Leighfield]

Well said Peter for summing all of that up so perfectly. Winkle did fly the 163 under power, the reason that he didn't say so earlier was because he couldn't. In effect, he wasn't supposed to do it.

Also the effect of the assumption that German research and conclusions about supersonic wings were superior was catastrophic. It might even have been a blind alley. Swept wings are not essential to supersonic flight at all. A perfect example is that of the Avro Canada CF100 Canuck. It had similar performance to the Gloster Javelin, was also dive supersonic, was a better aeroplane and yet had straight wings. Well well.

The negative consequences of cancelling the manned M52 programme have probably been under-estimated. A perfect example of the unshakable consistency of politicians with no expertise in anything useful in their ability to make the wrong decision with results that benefit none of us. We all live in reduced circumstances as a result, in my opinion. No wonder that Winkle Brown was frustrated, he had more brains and worthwhile life experience than most of them put together. It hasn't got any better since.

[Colin Leighfield]

BEB. What about the F16, F18, F22, F35, North American X5? With all due respect, that's nonsense.

Also supersonic flight instability was not a problem for theF104, it's problems were due more to small wing area. It was for many years NASA's preferred plane for supersonic flight research support and development.

[Peter Jenkins]

BEB

The Starfighter was in front line service with the USAF and a number of other nations. The main reason for the loss rate in Germany was down to the transition between learning to fly in the excellent weather in the US and coming home to typical European IMC with an aircraft that approached at 250 kts! But, it was cleared for flight by ordinary squadron pilots. So, I don't think it was a bad advert of a design.

Your second point is answered by the Starfighter design. It did fly successfully through the transonic regime.

You need to read Eric's book "Miles 52 - Gateway to Supersonic Flight" for the full answer. Suffice to say, that if the project had continued, Eric would have flown an aircraft that would in all probability have reached 1,000 mph. Moreover, the aircraft was powered by a jet engine, with the first instantiation of re-heat, that could take off and land on a conventional runway and fly for around 20 mins under power. Contrast that with the X1. Never mind that the planform has only really been approached by the Starfighter, what would having a 1,000 mph turbojet powered aircraft in 1946 have done for the UK fighter industry! The Germans, who were undoubtedly ahead in this field, were out of the game until their captured engineers and scientists had come up to speed in the US. The UK would have ruled the roost as far as the fighter was concerned. The US might even have forgiven us for being so short sighted and naive as to sell the Russians our jet engines.

Yes, there's a big difference between a research aircraft and a fighter - one only has to look at the Lightning to see that it isn't always a good thing to put a research aircraft into production as a fighter and expect it to have the required reliability - but in those days, manhours per flying hour were not really an issue - performance was all and we would have had an amazing lead in 1,000 mph jet fighters had our leaders at the time been open to this idea.

Then again, no UK government of what ever colour has ever fully understood the value of aviation to UK plc since WW2 which is why we are in the hole today as regards our military aerospace business. Thankfully, the civil aerospace business is alive and well but only for so long as we keep the Airbus wing design and manufacture in the UK and Rolls Royce don't leak away to the US and China.

[Colin Leighfield]

I'm 100% with Peter. Anybody who doesn't think that at some point Airbus wing manufacture won't drift across to Toulouse might be disappointed, what is the point of making them here since BAe sold out. Rolls Royce is increasingly placing its' research and production overseas because we hardly build planes here any more.

Looking again at my last two postings on this, written immediately after returning home from a very convivial dinner with a lot of red wine (sorry BEB), I notice that I said North American X5 when I meant15. Also I forgot to mention the T38 and F5 as straight winged supersonic aircraft.

Another point about the M52 which came out in Winkle's book was how it was very cleverly designed with a fuselage ring-beam to which the wings were attached. This was done so that different wings could be fitted without a complete re-design or re-build. What an effective research aircraft this could have been. I have no doubt that swept wings would have featured in this and the tortuous, slow and hugely expensive route through the Hawker P1054, P1081, Supermarine 510, 518, 535 to get to the Swift and Hunter wouldn't have been necessary. The M52 would have been providing accurate data from 1946 onwards and would have saved huge amounts of time and money. Perhaps the ultimate failure of the Swift to perform at high altitude, probably due to misleading supersonic wing research done at the National Physical Laboratory, would not have happened.

Finally the realisation of the huge negative influence of Barnes Wallis in his concerns about the M52, which gave encouragement to the governmental anti-brigade, has to be considered as fundamental in what happened to the M52 and post war aviation research in the UK. The money that was wasted in trying to make models of the M52 work to prove what the real one would have proved more quickly and cheaply as it turned out, plus the dead end research in Wild Goose and Swallow, shows just how wrong this all was. Barnes Wallis was a great man, but he has a lot to answer for in this respect.

[Colin Leighfield]

Here is the recently released book on the M52, which I recommend to anyone with an interest. It's an eye-opener. I think the reason we are hearing new things now in here and in the re-write of "Wings on my Sleeve" is because of the removal of restrictions which limited the things that could be said earlier. Also pictures of the radical CVA-101 aircraft carriers, which reflected a lot of Eric Brown's thinking. One was partially built and then scrapped under the direction of the Wilson government. They were intended to operate Buccaneers and Phantoms. All of this to save money, which was actually going into the UK economy, creating high added value employment, developing cutting-edge technology providing a lead for all UK manufacturing and spin-off export sales. Instead the money gets spent buying things abroad, employing someone else's population and funding benefits for people out of work instead of employing them. Utter lunacy and it hasn't changed since. I increasingly loathe politicians as a class and as I get older, it gets worse.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Colin Leighfield on 16/11/2014 01:35:35:

BEB. What about the F16, F18, F22, F35, North American X5? With all due respect, that's nonsense.

Chaps do you not think that you are allowing your patriotism to cause you heart to rule your head just a little here? I am second to no one in my admiration of the British aircraft industry and also of Eric Brown - very much a hero of mine. But we are in real danger of trying to rewrite aerodynamic facts to suit our our interpretation of history! OK let's look at these aeroplanes:

First up the F16:

Those wings look pretty well swept back to me!

Next the F18:

Again - I'd say that was a swept wing aircraft.

How about your third choice - the F22:

Yeap - sweep back again.

And your final example - the F35:

They look swept back to me!

Now lets compare the M52:

Mmmm, spot the odd one out!

BEB

PS Old joke - whats the easiest way to get an F104? Answer - buy a plot of land in Germany!

[Colin Leighfield]

BEB. Look at the X15, T38, F5 etc. The F18 is straight winged, the inboard strakes are integrated with the engine air intake system. The F22 and F35 are very low aspect ratio straight wings with sharp taper and certainly not swept in the normally described sense. You suggested that there had been no successful aircraft in the transonic sense without swept wings and that's simply wildly incorrect. If you are going to count sharply tapered wing leading edges as swept wings, perhaps you should include the Zlin Akrobat as swept wing.

The point you're missing is that as was established afterwards the M52 was certainly capable of going supersonic well before anything else and would have given the UK a significant lead as well as probably preventing the mistakes that subsequently caused such protracted and expensive delays in getting swept wing fighters into service. You also didn't pick up on the point that the M52 was designed so that different wings could easily be fitted, swept wings would almost certainly have been tested.

You really should read the book, it might surprise you. Also, if you want to be humorous about dodgy jet fighters making unintended impact with the ground, in the first year that the RAF operated the F86 Sabre, 35 were destroyed in accidents. Nobody calls the Sabre a dodgy aeroplane.

[kc]

Isnt it terrible that we are not referring to "Sir Eric" ? How come nonentities who are only famous for being on TV and getting old get titles but really accomplished people do not?

[Pete B]

Sadly, it would seem that Eric Brown, the subject of this thread, has undeservedly been displaced by a tangential discussion, kc - but I entirely agree with you!

Pete

[Colin Leighfield]

Sorry Pete, moderators aren't always right. This is about sticking up for what Eric Brown thinks and represents. So I don't accept your implied criticism, although I'm happy to leave it there.

[Pete B]

Couldn't disagree with your first point, Colin....

I've been following it with interest - most enlightening - and deserving of continuing in a thread in its own right, perhaps? I've stocked up on popcorn...

Pete

[Colin Leighfield]

Thanks Pete, no offence meant though. I'm just prickly where Winkle is concerned and I thought BEB's observation questioned his judgement. I put the aircraft carriers in because he was heavily involved in their design and some of his thinking from then is reflected in the two being built now. Perhaps some people didn't know about that. Let's hope these don't go the same way.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Colin Leighfield]

Now you're talking Percy. If only.