Miles M.64/L.R.5

fabulousfour

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
20 October 2009
Messages
55
Reaction score
81
My first post here, having read only this forum for years. :)
Now warming up this old thread, I have found a photo by coincidence which might be the mock-up of the production version of the Elliotts EoN 2. I think the resemblance is striking or am I totally wrong?


Source of the Photo is http://www.na3t.org/air/photo/AB01049
 

Attachments

  • AB01049.jpg
    AB01049.jpg
    92.4 KB · Views: 276
Hi Fabulousfour :)
I think the photo on na3t@org may show a very rare photo of the Miles M-64 (aka the LR-5).
 
walter said:
Hi Fabulousfour :)
I think the photo on na3t@org may show a very rare photo of the Miles M-64 (aka the LR-5).

I was skeptical at first, but a comparison with another L.R.5 photo definitely proves you right...
 

Attachments

  • AB01049.jpg
    AB01049.jpg
    92.4 KB · Views: 426
  • m64.jpg
    m64.jpg
    216.4 KB · Views: 365
Many thanks for all your answers, so this is definitely a rare shot.
Until now, I didn't even know about the Miles M.64 :-[
Thanks again,
best wishes
Robert
 
Yes, this was built and, yes, this flew - but badly is the adverb appropriate to both! So in these circumstances, I trust that the moderators will cut me some slack and allow me to post here extracts from an obscure, and long defunct, post-war British general aviation periodical, The Light Plane & Private Owner, of 1947.

This aeroplane was designed by and built at the Liverpool Road (hence the L.R. prefix - the number 5 reflecting the fact that it was the fifth design to emanate from that facility), Reading factory of Miles Aircraft in 1944/45 and was aimed at the perceived post-war market for club, training and private owner aeroplanes. It was first flown on 3 June 1945 by George Miles, but it did not fly well (it might be fairer to say that it flew dangerously) and the nature of its problem would have necessitated a complete fuselage redesign. This, combined with the pressure of work under which Miles Aircraft was at the time, meant that development of the aeroplane was not pursued and subsequently it was quietly abandoned and ultimately it was broken up at Woodley in 1948.

The M.64/L.R.5 made only one public appearance, which was the White Waltham 'Light Plane Show' on 18 January 1947. This was reported extensively in The Light Plane & Private Owner of February 1947 (Vol. 1, No. 3). Part of that report appears below, together with a photograph of the aeroplane taken at that event. Evidently the publishers of that periodical held it in high regard - whilst they may have seen it fly, presumably they did not fly it - and so the editorial in a subsequent issue (vol. 1, no. 5) was a plea to Miles Aircraft to put it into production. That editorial is reproduced below. As is now known, that plea fell on deaf ears - seemingly for very good reasons. The aeroplane was mentioned in a letter in the same issue of that periodical (see below).

The last copy which I have of The Light Plane & Private Owner is dated June 1947 (vol. 1, no. 6). Whether subsequent issues were published, I know not. Thus I do not know whether there was an issue published in 1948 which lamented the scapping of the M.64/L.R.5 that year!
 

Attachments

  • img085.jpg
    img085.jpg
    335.4 KB · Views: 229
  • img086.jpg
    img086.jpg
    559.3 KB · Views: 199
  • img087.jpg
    img087.jpg
    139.1 KB · Views: 59
I don't believe that the Miles M.64/L.R.5 would have been a contender for the AM T16/48 specification. It had first flown in 1945 and had proved to be a marked disappointment to the company. I have no record of it flying after early 1947. It was scapped in 1948 and so if the /48 indicates the year in which the specification was issued (please forgive my ignorance in this respect), it seems improbable that it was a contender. Furthermore by 1948 Miles Aircraft was no more, the assets having been acquired by Handley Page - which makes irreconcilable the appearance, in the list in the first post, of a Miles type and HPR.2.
 
Thank you, Jemiba. Maybe you can move here the posts on the other thread concerning the M.64 as it seems clear - as far as I can see - that it never was a contender for AM Specification T.16/48.

posts moved
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom