Talk:Miles M.52
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Miles M.52 is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
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
[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.."
