Talk:Bell X-1

Section Not Related to the Bell X-1

This article is supossed to be about the Bell X-1 aircraft and not about a model.

Parallel development section has nothing in direct or in-direct relation with the Bell X-1. This sub-section reads more like an attempt to diminish the Bell X-1 and is completely out of place. This section renders the article as not being neutral. I believe the entire section under Parallel development should be deleted or used in a article on the Miles M.52.

The article on the Miles M.52 has no Parallel development section leading to the Bell X-1! Duke Proximan (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This section was created in 2016 by creating a new header in the 'Design and development' section and using existing text, the section had relevance, citing a collaboration deal, which is not in the current version of the article. The section should be restored to the last version that contained clear relevance. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Collaboration deal is by no means an excuse for putting a whole paragraph regarding development of another plane into this article! This section in its current form contains literally no information about the X-1 and should be removed. Collaboration deal should be definitely included IF there is clearly sourced information on its impact on X-1's design and development. But frankly, after reading all the discussions under this article and that on Miles M.52 and other corners of the Internet, I'm under impression that the only claim on M.52's direct influence seems to be coming from Eric Brown (who was not involved in the X-1 in the slightest) or people quoting Eric Brown. Something like:

Distinguished British pilot Eric "Winkle" Brown, who was involved in development of the contemporary British supersonic research plane Miles M.52, claimed that the X-1 design was heavily influenced by the research data passed by Miles Aircraft to Bell in 1944 and later in 1946, including the crucially important idea of using an all-moving tail for control in the transonic region.

would be more factual and more than enough to address this issue. Angel-0A (talk) 09:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

wrong in detail, Dennis Bancroft also made similar claims. Greglocock (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I saw Bancroft quoted on technology transfer and American refusal to reciprocate, not on its influence on the X-1, but since he wrote Miles M.52: Gateway to Supersonic Flight together with Brown I guess it is safe to assume that they shared this view. And probably a few other individuals involved in the M.52 could be found ready to support this claim. But as you already noted, this is a minor detail. The bigger problem is that there seems to be no paper trail following this transfer on the American side and there should be one, if any of this information was to be used. Some memos, technical papers, etc.. Such documents would put an end to this debate once and for all but I guess there are no any?

The only mention of American reaction to British research I ever saw was in an interesting article on both planes published in Aeroplane (534) 10/2017 p.34, where the author presents the timeline of both research efforts. He writes about yet another American visit to Miles no one else seems to be talking about:

28 June 1945: Clark Millikan, a distinguished academic from CalTech (the California Institute of Technology) and an adviser on aeronautics to the US Navy, visited Miles Aircraft. His notes of this event concluded: “The Miles aircraft for this purpose appears greatly handicapped by the powerplant specified. The Miles design was made without any knowledge of the recent German developments in the transonic field and accordingly has not yet taken advantage of much information which is now available. In general the design appears to have little to offer US designers, although the very thin bi-convex airfoil section, with thick constant-curvature covering, the unbalanced power-boost controls and the all-moving horizontal tail, might be of interest. It is believed that with the present state of knowledge a much better solution of the transonic research airplane problem is possible. In view of the above it is recommended that no further steps be taken at this time to obtain additional information on the project from the British government.”

Interestingly there is no mention of 1944 technology transfer in this timeline. Anyway, unless some primary sources on American side can be provided showing Miles data being at least discussed, I don't think Brown's claims should be recognized as anything more than claims. Angel-0A (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)