Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Britain's "Emergency Fighter"- The Miles M20

Discussion in 'WWII Today' started by GRW, Nov 14, 2020.

  1. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,926
    Likes Received:
    1,897
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    And yet, the Miles fighter outperformed the Hurricane fighter....

    Boy! Imagine what they would have done if they met Bronk's idea of "experience."
     
  2. ARWR

    ARWR Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2020
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    The Shire
    But on the other hand Hawkers had no experience of combat monoplanes before the Hurricane so it seems a some what irrelevant argument
    The real choke point turned out to be not producing aircraft to replace losses but training new pilots, the Miles Master Advanced trainer being somewhat important in this respect.
     
  3. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,320
    Likes Received:
    228
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    plain and simple-it was a failure = they did not have the experience/etc to produce an acceptable model
    ... it took a loooooong time to design, agree upon, engineer, etc the Hurricane - .....I've been saying this many times and on the Pershing thread....look at how long it takes to get a final-accepted version of these planes and tanks....
    ..if they had much experience, etc it would not take that long....it is ''quick''' to make different models such as the F4U and then the F4UC/etc and so on
    ...here's the deal--this [ monoplane/combat monoplane ] was relatively new technology--so they could not have had much experience
    --the key issue = I would say experience does help/did help in designing/inventing the monoplanes--you disagree?
     
  4. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,320
    Likes Received:
    228
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    and yet the Miles fighter was rejected
     
  5. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,320
    Likes Received:
    228
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    and, Hurri and Spitfire = combat proven....M20 not combat proven
    ..you can produce anything you want, but until it's combat proven = means nothing
     
  6. ARWR

    ARWR Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2020
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    The Shire
    No it was not rejected rather it was not needed - if you read what I wrote the real choke point was the training of new pilots not the production of replacement aircraft. The production of Spitfires and Hurricanes was adequate so disrupting this by introducing a new model would have been dumb.You do miss the point.
     
  7. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,926
    Likes Received:
    1,897
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Sigh...The Hurricane was already in production...Factories and what not already tooled up for production. There was no tooling up yet for the Miles, because Germany bombers had not destroyed British fighter factories.

    You seem to be quite unable to get past the fact that this was not a replacement for the Hurricane or Spitfire...But a fighter aircraft to be put into production because it made use of standard parts and nonstrategic materials, and could be produced literally anywhere.
     
  8. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,926
    Likes Received:
    1,897
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Has nothing to do with combat-proven at all, and everything to do with British factories still being relatively undamaged by the German air offensive.

    Had the factories producing the Hurricane and/or Spitfire been destroyed or severely damaged, there not making any Spitfires or Hurricanes are they? Nor would it be easily achievable to rapidly setup other factories to build Spitfires and Hurricanes. This is where the Miles would come in.

    EXCEPT, as I repeat over and over, those factories were not destroyed or severely damaged...Hence, no Miles. The fact that the Miles outperformed the Hurricane or that the Miles was not combat proven are irrelevant to the decision not to produce the Miles. The only deciding factor was the destruction/severe damaging of the fighter factories. The fighter factories were not destroyed/severely damaged, so the Miles was not put into production.

    You claim engineering experience...I can make you a flowchart if it makes it easier for you to understand.
     
  9. ARWR

    ARWR Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2020
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    The Shire
    Indeed production of the Miles Master advanced trainer was vital in maintaining the flow of new pilots to the squadrons and diverting this to produce M20 components would only be justifiable in extreme emergency. The Luftwaffe was crippled at the end of the war because it couldn't train/retrain pilots in part because Speer had diverted trainer production to front line fighters and they had Me 262s to spare but too few fighter pilots with instrument training to fly them safely.

    In 1940 a 'kit' was developed to convert Masters into emergency fighter bombers. This involved removing a seat and the dual controls and fitting under wing hard points for bombs and cannon. They would have been flown by the instructors from the flying schools/training squadrons and used to attack beachheads - that would have been a real emergency.
     
  10. ARWR

    ARWR Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2020
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    The Shire
  11. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,320
    Likes Received:
    228
    Location:
    MIDWEST
  12. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,320
    Likes Received:
    228
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    ok--[ hahahhahahah ] not combat proven/not produced in quantity/etc
    ..yes I read that
     
  13. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,320
    Likes Received:
    228
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    1.no, we don't know for sure they would've produced the 20 if the other factories were bombed
    --even if bombed, that doesn't mean the factories would've been destroyed
    2. as stated, we certainly don't know for sure if it could've been successful in combat
    3. very critical---how many prototypes were made?? 2???!!! 2???? just 2? ...
     
  14. bronk7

    bronk7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Messages:
    4,320
    Likes Received:
    228
    Location:
    MIDWEST
    F4F faster than the Brewster--but F4F rejected:
    Grumman F4F Wildcat – the prototypes
     
  15. ARWR

    ARWR Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2020
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    The Shire
    An entirely spurious argument - no company had much experience of retractable undercarriages - not Hawker, not Supermarine not Bavarian Flugwerk, not Mitsubishi etc etc - they all managed
     
  16. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,926
    Likes Received:
    1,897
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    You don't really believe that do you?

    First, the aircraft was not to have any hydraulic systems. This was specified by the Air Ministry.
    Second, a manual retraction gear or electrical retraction gear was also mostly a no-no, as it would have unnecessarily complicated the design and would have lengthened production time. The Air Ministry wanted the plane to be easily and rapidly produced. Retractable landing gear was an unnecessary complication.
     
  17. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,926
    Likes Received:
    1,897
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Yes, and the Wildcat prototype was inferior to the Buffalo in all other aspects. The Miles was superior to the Hurricane in all aspects.
     
  18. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,926
    Likes Received:
    1,897
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Sure we do, that was why the Air Ministry wanted the design. That was why it specified:
    Wooden construction to utilize a nonstrategic labor force and resource.
    Non-Retracting undercarriage - an over complication seen as unnecessary.
    Deletion of all hydraulics - then in short supply.
    Use of existing powerplant - The Merlin XX.
    Standard Parts - to be included wherever possible to simplyfy and speed production.
     
  19. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    8,926
    Likes Received:
    1,897
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    What a Comedian you are...All aircraft are not proven in combat proven when produced.
    Was the Hurricane proven in combat when it was first produced...No. How about the Spitfire...No. Hellcat...No. Mustang...No
    Please show me one aircraft that was combat proven before beginning production.
     
  20. ARWR

    ARWR Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2020
    Messages:
    211
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    The Shire
    No it wasn't, it would have been much less versatile. It was an emergency area defence fighter with all the limitations that involves.
     

Share This Page