Eric "Winkle" Brown

[David P Williams]

For those that have missed this documentary on previous showings, it's repeated tomorrow night, BBC4 10pm.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I've seen it several times now, a very good programme - one to record and keep.

BEB

[Mike Etheridge 1]

I must also record it. I also have a book written about EWB and it is documented that his most favoured aircraft was the De Havilland Hornet. It's nice to know that the group in New Zealand are constructing a full size Hornet.

[Cuban8]

Would have been the first through Mach 1 if it wasn't for all the political chicanery on both sides of the Atlantic.

Essential reading - **LINK**

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Mowerman]

I watched the program again last night ( I had seen it when first broadcast ) then I thought , footballers, news readers, comics ,pop singers and lots of 'party contributors' get knighthoods !

Does that make you feel proud to be British?

[Tomtom39]

Very much agree Mowerman .He should have had one as well as John Surtee's . Both very similar men!

[Tony Kenny]

Fantastic documentary, makes me wonder why I've not heard of him before.

[Simon Chaddock]

And it will be virtually impossible for anyone to ever again accumulate as many different military aircraft types in his log book!.

[onetenor]

I already posted on this but it vanished into god knows where .I said I agree Mowerman and I'll add here it's a pity you can't get a posthumous knighthood or I'd be starting a petition

[Cuban8]

I don't like conspiracy theories, usually it's a case of cock-up rather than conspiracy where the answer to many contentious issues can be found. However, in the case of the Miles M52, the government's behaviour is truly extraordinary and one does begin to wonder whether the publicity of a knighthood for Eric Brown might have highlighted some inconvenient truths. Eric was awarded the CBE in 1970.

Very sadly, the self serving 'awards industry' that we have now has so diminished the value of even the very highest honour that it's hardly worth worrying about - but that's all another subject for another time.

[i12fly]

I true gentleman, when I met him he had time for anyone and everyone -even me.....

[ken anderson.]

recorded and just watched this program...what a man, very talented for flying aircraft and much more..... RIP Eric Brown .. a one off man. .....

ken Anderson...ne..1..... respect dept.

[Piers Bowlan]

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 26/11/2017 10:31:16

[Piers Bowlan]

A good read if an inditement of a sad period in British aviation history. My book signed by the great man himself at the Shoreham airshow a few years ago.

ISBN 978 0 7524 7014 6, if anyone is interested.

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 26/11/2017 10:40:20

[PatMc]

It's unrealistic to think that the M62 could have achieved the requirements of the specification it was designed to meet [E.24/43] which was 1000mph/Mach 1.5. Nor was there much prospect that it would have been able to reach Mach1 in level flight without a more powerfull engine [possibly rocket assist], airframe redesign & probably carried to altitude by an adapted Lancaster. Added to this that the pilot had little if any chance of escape in the event of an emergency.

[Piers Bowlan]

I don't know where you get your information from PatMc but I am pretty sure that the chaps working on this project knew their onions (even in 1946/7). The aircraft was designed to climb at 15,000 fpm to 50,000ft, then make an 8 degree shallow dive to M1.5. then fly level, maintaining speed for two minutes before returning to land after a period of 20 minutes. They had amassed a lot of data from rocket propelled scale models and the Powerjets W.2/700 engine producing, with augmentation (reheat?), 7000lbs of thrust, the project looked like a goer.

I don't think that there was ever a plan to carry a M52 aloft under a Lancaster or for it to carry rocket boosters.. Remember that this was a time of phenomenal progress in engine development with greater thrust being achieved on almost a monthly basis. The UK led the world as far as jet propulsion was concerned, the American Westinghouse engine being very much inferior. I have little doubt that the objective would have surely been achieved had the aircraft not been scrapped so abruptly.

If the pilot had an emergency the 'pilot's cabin' was jettisoned, hence its unusual shape. This may not have been too successful at low altitude but then all early jets were deficient in this area until the development of effective ejector seats.

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 26/11/2017 20:12:58

[Colin Leighfield]

I bought the book that Piers illustrates as soon as it came out. It is a brilliant read and included a lot of information that wsn’t released before. Absolutely recommended. There’s no doubt in my mind that it would have achieved its carefully planned objectives. It was more aerodynamically advanced than the similar Bell X1 and would with its considerably greater duration have given more far more relevant data at realistic operating altitudes.

Also it confounds the myth that our leading experts were ignorant of the possibilities offered by swept wings, they were seriously considered and rejected for good reasons that are well described. I hadn’t realised that the shape of the wing leading edge and wing tips were carefully designed to match the shock wave at speeds around Mach 1. Also the wing was attached to a fuselage ring beam in a way that enabled easy removal and replacement with alternative designs, including swept. Looking at it now it is hard to imagine a more carefully considered and flexible research aircraft for high speed advancement.

As so often happens, there has been some tendency in latter years to downplay the significance of the M52, which I think is completely misguided. Earlier judgements that cancellation was a massive strategic error were completely correct in my view, it cost us dear. I have never found any reason to question Eric Brown’s judgement and his despair at the sacrifice of the M52 was totally justified. The TV programme about him was good, but is no more than a snapshot and only tells a small part of the story. He was a very great man.

[Piers Bowlan]

I agree Colin, the lack of sweepback is often sited as a flaw, people conveniently forgetting that the F104, F18 and F35 don't feature very much sweep either, - and they are quite quick! One of the ground breaking design features of the M52 was it's all flying tailplane. At high mach numbers high performance fighters of the day experienced mach tuck and control surface reversal for the elevator and rudder. RAE Farnborough tested a spitfire Mk.9 fitted with an all flying tailplane which was flown by Eric to mach .85.

In 1944 the Ministry of Aviation Procurement invited a US delegation to visit the Miles top secret factory and inspect the M52. It was made up of senior members of the USAAF, NACA, and Bell Aircraft Corporation. Miles were instructed to give them all the information they had, including details of the all flying tailplane. The MAP thought that a reciprocal invitation would be returned by the Americans. It never happened, so much for the special relationship. However the rocket powered Bell X1 was fitted with an all flying tailplane when it made its historic supersonic flight.

The budget to build two M52 prototypes was £130,000, which rose to an estimated £250,000, which in todays money is about £9M. This sounds pretty good value but then the country had been bankrupted by WW2. With one prototype 87% completed, Attlee's government sadly gave the project the chop.

 

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 27/11/2017 12:22:44

[PatMc]

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 26/11/2017 19:57:10:

I don't know where you get your information from PatMc but I am pretty sure that the chaps working on this project knew their onions (even in 1946/7). The aircraft was designed to climb at 15,000 fpm to 50,000ft, then make an 8 degree shallow dive to M1.5. then fly level, maintaining speed for two minutes before returning to land after a period of 20 minutes. They had amassed a lot of data from rocket propelled scale models and the Powerjets W.2/700 engine producing, with augmentation (reheat?), 7000lbs of thrust, the project looked like a goer.

I don't think that there was ever a plan to carry a M52 aloft under a Lancaster or for it to carry rocket boosters.. Remember that this was a time of phenomenal progress in engine development with greater thrust being achieved on almost a monthly basis. The UK led the world as far as jet propulsion was concerned, the American Westinghouse engine being very much inferior. I have little doubt that the objective would have surely been achieved had the aircraft not been scrapped so abruptly.

If the pilot had an emergency the 'pilot's cabin' was jettisoned, hence its unusual shape. This may not have been too successful at low altitude but then all early jets were deficient in this area until the development of effective ejector seats.

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 26/11/2017 20:12:58

The power unit of the M.52 could not produce adequate thrust for the design requirements to be met. The National Gas Turbine Establishment made tests in simulated conditions at 50,000 ft/478 kts, 36,000 ft/870 kts & Sea Level/434 kts. Their report gives the highest thrust achieved as 5,250 lbs.

Due to the uncertainties of the power unit plans for the M.52 to have rocket boosters [possibly even sole rocket power] or for it to be carried aloft by a Lancaster were apparently considered but rejected.

The plans to eject the entire cockpit in an emergency were "in hand" [i.e. not finalised], the alternative manuall bail out procedure was also untried as no trials had been successfully completed with mock-ups of the system.

 

 

Edited By PatMc on 01/12/2017 23:29:15

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Colin Leighfield]

I really think that anyone wanting to seriously comment on the M52 should make sure they’ve read this work first. It isn’t just a narrative, it contains information that hasn’t been released before and throws significant new light on the project. As far as engine thrust is concerned, I don’t doubt that the development process would have significantly increased it, it’s perfectly clear that as initially flown it wasn’t expected that thrust would be sufficient to go supersonic in level flight until later.

The belated and ridiculously expensive air launched model tests conducted under Barnes Wallis’s direction proved the aerodynamics of the design, it was perfectly capable of comfortably exceeding Mach 1. If only that money had been spent in completing the project in the first place the true value of the outstanding work done on it during the war would have been realised. The understanding of the need for the “all-flying” tailplane was a breakthrough that later enabled the Bell X1 to go supersonic, before that it was uncontrollable approaching that speed and would never have achieved its objective. The wing design of the M52 was also significantly more advanced than that of the X1, in spite of its “straight” configuration. When you read the design criteria behind it you start to understand that and the reason why a swept configuration was discounted initially, it wasn’t done in ignorance but as a careful consideration of comparative criteria. Whereas the wing of the X1 was simply a thin “straight” design, the leading edge and tip shapes and section of the M52 wing were specifically designed to work effectively in the transonic and supersonic region.

I think that we should be prepared to accept the opinion of Eric Brown on this as a major lost opportunity, it has been adequately corroborated over time and as far as I’m concerned he knew far more about it than any of us can claim to do. Post historical second-guessing in either direction doesn’t add anything, facts do and what we know now reinforces the credibility of the M52 project rather than questions it negatively.

Edited By Colin Leighfield on 02/12/2017 08:22:38

[ken anderson.]

well said Colin... it must have been a fascinating time to be around........an era when we were the leaders and most of the others were followers....suppose in years to come they'll be talking about Concorde in the same type of looking back/what if etc....conversations...

ken Anderson...ne..1..... leading dept.

[Piers Bowlan]

The M52 was never finished so it is speculation as to whether it would or would not have been successful, we will simply never know. Regarding the NGTE test you refer to (date?), what I would say is that the engine was in development. The rate of progress of greater pressure, temperature, RPM and ultimately thrust, increased with each rework of the design. It took about six months to redesign, build and test a new version of the Powerjets engine. Whittle patented the Turbo jet in 1930 and 'reheat' (afterburner) in 1936. The engined destined for the M52 incorporated a turbine driven augmenter fan (a bypass fan) and jet pipe with reheat. Pat, you tell us that it did not produce adequate thrust but it was producing more thrust by a country mile than any other engine in existence at that time. We have no way of knowing whether the design objectives would have been achieved with further development had the project not been axed when it was. What is true is that engine development did continue, as new materials, bearings, combustion chamber design and new fabrication techniques etc. were devised.

I don't think that escape from an M52 would have been any more onerous than escape from a Bell X1 in 1943. The X1 and it's derivatives wasn't fitted with an ejector seat until 1954. Just after the war, being a test pilot was a very dangerous job but there was no shortage of volunteers. H & S hadn't been invented.