Talk:Miles M.52

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

It's hardly fair to remove the "anti-labour" bias. I'm a canuck who could care less for UK politics. More to the point, it is absolutely the case that the labour govornments of the immediate post-war and then late 1950's are responsible for the cancellation of the vast majority of the UK's aerospace projects. Most notable is Duncan Sandys 1957 decision to cancel _all_ manned aircraft, sparing only the TSR.2 (for a few years).

Eh? In 1957 the Tories were in power. Also how accurate would it be to suggest that both TSR-2 and Avro Arrow were cancelled due to US bullying of the respective governments? - User:gcarty

Contents 1 Sources and missing data 2 Subsequent work 3 Faster than Sound documentary 4 Apology 5 Origin of 1000 mph requirement

[edit] Sources and missing data

I'd like to remove the template at the bottom of the page, for having zero data. Additionally, some of the points mentioned in the article ("the US reneged on the agreement...", "obtained a speed of Mach 1.5...") have no sources attributed. I would like to change the "obtained speed" to "observed speed" as this was unmanned flight, and the aircraft was not recovered. The former I would like to eliminate, stating only that data was not provided by the Americans, as nothing shows a "reneg"ing of the agreement. Avriette 20:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you do a little research into the subject using non US sources - there is little doubt that Renege is the correct term to use. That there was a technology sharing agreement, and that after recieving British research the US government declined to share are matters of record... Sounds like reneging on a deal to me. 84.92.80.169 17:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subsequent work

"..instead of diving into the sea as planned, the model ignored radio commands and was last observed (on radar) heading out into the Atlantic." Surely this implies that the rocket took a conscious decision to 'ignore' radio commands? A better wording might be "...the model failed to respond to radio commands.."

I don't have a solid source on this, but my understanding from previous documentaries is slightly different - that it was commanded to perform a very sharp turn that was intended to cause it to break up. However, the airframe unexpectedly survived the turn and was last seen heading out to sea. Eftpotrm 11:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faster than Sound documentary

Here is a quote from the televsion documentary. It may be controversial, it still represents a valid reference source. STACY KEACH (NARRATOR): For 50 years, the cancellation of the M-52 has been the subject of argument and secrecy. Ben Lockspieser was the civil servant who abandoned the project. He said it was too dangerous. The reasons why he came to this decision are only now becoming clear. At the end of the war, Lockspieser accompanied a number of British and American scientists who visited a secret aircraft research laboratory near Munich in Germany. All that remains today is the blocked-up entrance. But some of Germany's most talented aircraft designers once worked here—on designs that convinced Lockspieser the M-52 would never break the sound barrier. Bzuk 03:45 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Actually television documentaries are not reliable reference sources on anything. The actual reason for the cancellation of the Miles M.52 were made clear in "Project Cancelled" by Derek Woods. They were that Britain was utterly bankrupt post WW2 and couldn't afford the program, and Barnes Wallis convinced the Government that the research could be acrried out better and less expensively using unmanned, rocket-powered scale models. Unfortunately, all the available research money was spend trying to get the models to work and none was left for research. The comment about German swept wing research is purely speculative and has been deleted.

Please note that television and motion picture documentaries are veted and go through a thorough "author and title" search conducted by not only researchers but also by legal authorities. Your "broad" statement on documentaries is simply your point of view and should be substantiated if you wish it to be taken seriously. Also, unsigned comments or comments placed under an anonymous userid do not lead credence to your arguments. Bzuk 14:45 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Bzuk 13:45 23 April 2007 (UTC).

The above is a deliberate lie and a libel. I did not remove any part of anybody elses posting.

I demand an immediate and unconditonal apology

Again I come across a post by this anonymous user calling a wikipedia author a liar. This is personal attack #2, and I'm only on the second or third link of this editor's contributions list. To make matters worse, it then goes on to make a legal comment, which is another violation of official policy.

To this user, whoever you are: adding material to the wikipedia is important, especially if, as you claim, the existing material is wrong. However you are unlikely to convince anyone of this if you go around insulting everyone and threatening them or making demands. In this case you will likely find your additional unceremoniously removed, and your ability to edit blocks.

If you have something to add, try doing so without calling us liars simply because we disagree with you.

Maury 16:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is a rather different case. You and I have a specific disagreement over sources of data which I am sure we can thresh out in time. However, Bzuk accused me of deleting comments made on this page; an accusation which is completely untrue. I did delete a small section in the article and replaced it with information from "Project Cancelled" but I have deleted nothing on the discussion page nor would I consider doing so. His accusation is, therefore, false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.37.62.194 (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Well if the two cases are so completely different, how is it that your response in both cases was to start calling people liars? Really, do you think we're going successfully "thresh out in time" some sort of agreeable position after you called me a liar? No really, I'm astonished by your behavior. And then to go around demanding an apology.... where's your apology to me? Maury 18:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

The above editor 69.37.62.194 is entirely correct and I attribute the lost section to an editing error on my part. I was going to reference the quote from the earlier comment and had moved my editing to an off-site MS Word document which I then edited and then proceeded to erase my own comment in editing. I then saw his note that "The comment about German swept wing research is purely speculative and has been deleted." and mistakingly assumed that he had made the deletion. In reviewing my own stupidity, I found the MS Word file and then compared it to the history file to see where I had made the mistake. The only thing I can say in my defence is that I had actually been commenting about a "Fokker" discussion page as well and had somehow transposed the commentary to this page. Again, my apologies. IMHO, I am a dunce at times and need a dose of humility which I accept. Comment also posted on affected editor's talk page.Bzuk 18:14, 23 2007 (UTC).

Your gracious and kindly apology is gratefully accepted. In turn, I apologize for jumping at you and my excessive unpleasantness over a relatively minor issue. Might I respectfully suggest that we put this unfortunate misunderstanding behind us and continue to trade information for the benefit of all the readers. With sincere thanks for your quick response.

[edit] Origin of 1000 mph requirement

It is amazing the effect that a single character typographical error can have. I understand that:

The 1000 mph requirement resulted from an intercepted Enigma transmission about the Me 262 quoting its maximum speed as 1000 kph i.e. subsonic, that was typo'd or mistranslated as 1000 mph i.e. supersonic. Faced with this amazing requirement, the Miles designers realised that they would have to throw away everything they knew about aircraft design and start from scratch, beginning with information about the stability of supersonic bullets and shells, hence the pointed nose and sharp wing leadind edges. In addition to the all-moving tailplane, already mentioned, the Miles experiments included fitting the wings on a Miles trainer back-to-front to test the effect of sharp leading edges on take off and landing.

Should this info be worked into the article? GilesW 14:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! If you can get some external reference for this, YES, please add it. I think it's a wonderful little bit of history. Maury 22:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)