Miles M22

[Flitzer]

Hi
does anyone have the design date for the Miles M22?
Spotted it over on What if modellers.

I feel a profile coming on.

Also I ask what the armament might have been if the 10 Browning gun nest had not been used?

Cheers
and Many thanks
Peter
;D

 

[mz]

Sorry, I can't contribute, but there's some extremely lousy pilot visibility going on there.

 

[Flitzer]

there's some extremely lousy pilot visibility going on there

Hi mz...
you are right. ;D :

It brings a whole new meaning to 'over the horizon'.

Cheers
Peter
;D

 

[lark]

In the leading edge of the centre section,ahead of the cockpit was a small bullet
shaped nacelle bolted to the front spar.This containing ten (10) .303 Browing guns.
A total of 5,000 rounds of ammunition was provided as compared with 2,400 rounds
in the contemporary fighters.

Miles Aircraft since 1925.Putnam.

p.s. there was also a M.22A..

 

[Nick Sumner]

Erm...

Dare I say - how were the engines cooled?

 

[Just call me Ray]

Stupid question, why isn't the gun nest actually depicted in most of those pictures?

 

[lark]

Engine cooling.... maybe via the inlet doors in the underside of the cowlings ?(near to the spinners)

 

[Flitzer]

p.s. there was also a M.22A..

Hi Lark.
Any chance of pics please?
How different is it to this one?

Many thanks
Peter

 

[lark]

Due for next week Peter.Watch the postman....

 

[Flitzer]

Many many thanks Paul.
Truly appreciated.

Cheers
Peter
;D

 

[Tophe]

The code 2222 was for a Blériot twin-fuselage, but it could have been used by Miles as well…

 

[Flitzer]

Hi Tophe
great stuff.
Cheers
Peter ;D

 

[Potawatomi13]

I would like to contact Flitzer with a PM (or whoever else is an "expert) on the Miles M.22 fast fighter. I am interested and have questions that don't seem useful on the open board.

Thank you, Bill Kohler

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Moved to right topic.

 

[CAO 700]

What's about the Unicraft kit of this nice project?

 

[Stargazer]

The code 2222 was for a Blériot twin-fuselage, but it could have been used by Miles as well…

Great stuff, Tophe, but you seem to have got confused between the two forums we are both members of... Whiffing amidst a serious thread is a no-no around here...

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Hi
does anyone have the design date for the Miles M22?
Spotted it over on What if modellers.

I feel a profile coming on.

Also I ask what the armament might have been if the 10 Browning gun nest had not been used?

Cheers
and Many thanks
Peter
;D

Reminds me about the Grumman XF5F Skyrocket, of "Blackhawk" fame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XF5F_Skyrocket

 

[Flitzer]

Hi
does anyone have the design date for the Miles M22?
Spotted it over on What if modellers.

I feel a profile coming on.

Also I ask what the armament might have been if the 10 Browning gun nest had not been used?

Cheers
and Many thanks
Peter
;D

Reminds me about the Grumman XF5F Skyrocket, of "Blackhawk" fame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XF5F_Skyrocket

Many thanks Hammer.
The skyrocket does look similar if a little more 'agricultural'.

Cheers
P

 

[Bailey]

does anyone have the design date for the Miles M22?

In "Wings Over Woodley" - Julian Temple gives it as a 1941 project.

Regards Bailey.

 

[screenworx]

Also I ask what the armament might have been if the 10 Browning gun nest had not been used?

Cheers
and Many thanks
Peter
;D

One thing for sure it would not have had the 10 Brownings had it gone ahead, that sort of armament had already been rejected for the Whirlwind and was only proposed in 1938 to 40 in case cannon armament proved too problematical, by 41 that wasn't the case. For some years previously machine gun calibre armament was already considered inadequate for the speed of attack then envisaged ie 350 to 400mph, so for a 500mph fighter it would have been barely of any worth at all. So some sort of cannon armament would have been used, one presumes something similar to the Whirlwind in fact. However I cant really imagine what, as I think you are asking it would have been with no pod at all so I wonder if the pod was being proposed as an interchangable armament concept with the Brownings as the base offering and other roles for an unarmed version.

As for project date, because of the above and the fact that by mid 41 there was really no interest in new piston engined fighters I suspect that this is more late 40 or very early 41, though it might be interesting to know if this was being proposed as a back up option against German jets should they become operational earlier than they did and British jets were further delayed.

 

[robunos]

Putnam's 'Miles' just says 'during 1941', interestingly, Miles prepared the cannon-armed M.22A project to specification F.18/40, issued in late 1940...


cheers,
Robin.

 

[Stargazer]

does anyone have the design date for the Miles M22?

In "Wings Over Woodley" - Julian Temple gives it as a 1941 project.

Sounds highly improbable. The Miles M.22A was submitted in answer to specification F.18/40; meanwhile the M.20 prototypes, which answered specification F.19/40, were both completed in that same year. It is therefore perfectly logical that the M.22 was designed and submitted that same year, and BEFORE the M.22A.

1940 also saw the introduction of the M.27 Master III and the Hoopla aerial torpedo project. First 1941 Miles project that I find is the M.28 Mercury I.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I'm surprised that the RAF didn't at least order a prototype as a photo-recon bird, especially after the Fall of France.

 

[Stargazer]

I'm surprised that somehow Flitzer's own artwork does not appear in this topic, so here it is (in low definition, so I don't think he will mind).

 

[Stargazer]

And here are the three-view arrangements of both the M.22 and M.22A projects (from the Putnam book) showing two very different aircraft:

 

[SlickDriver]

F.19/40 Issued on 9/9/40 to Miles.

Miles proposal for its M.20 fighter was covered by Specification F.19/40. Nine weeks and two days later, it had been designed and flown. This was a far more simple design than the M.22.

Miles M.22 and M.22A were designed for F.18/40. The requirement was issued on 10/11/40. The engines used on the M.22 were Rolls-Royce Griffons which were not available until 1941. So the time frame of 1941 for both would be correct, since F.19/40 was tendered PRIOR to F.18/40 and was of a leaner design.

This is according to "The British Aircraft Specifications File" and "Miles Aircraft Since 1925"

 

[Schneiderman]

Miles submitted a patent application for the 10-gun nose pod on Jan 9th 1940. The illustration suggests that the design for the M22 was well underway at the time which indicates that the concept dates from late 1939, a year before F.18/40 was issued.

 

[cluttonfred]

IIRC, the original M.22 was intended to use a variation of the adjustable height seat and forward folding canopy top already proven in the Master series of trainers and their derivatives. Basically the instructor in those trainers could use a lever to raise his seat up quite a bit to provide better visibility for takeoff and landing with the canopy top hinging forward at the same time to form a windscreen. A similar system was intended for use during takeoff and landing in the M.22 to improve visibility during those critical phases while minimizing drag for high speed flight. Here are a couple of examples of the seat and canopy/windscreen in Masters:

 

[Flitzer]

Apologies...re: artwork.
Better late than....

Not sure if they are any better though.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!

http://alternathistory.com/proekt-istrebitelya-miles-m22-velikobritaniya-1941-god

https://www.flickr.com/photos/40933081@N04/5169090059