Talk:Miles M.20

Military history: Aviation / British / European / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

Aviation: Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Armament[edit]

David Mondey's "British aircraft of World War II" claims an armament of 12 Browning mgs, and implys that the engine assemblies were that of the Halifax and Lancaster bombers.Can anyone shed any light on this.Cetot 10:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jane's was written during the time the M.20 was actually being tested and built. I'm more inclined to trust it as a source for weapons. The other two sources agree on the 8-gun armament as well. Besides - 12 guns would be extraordinarily heavy and take up a ton of space. As for the Merlin engine assembly, the Handley-Page Halifax and Avro Lancaster used the same Merlin XX engines. -ericg ✈ 17:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the operative words that I missed were "intended to be".As only two prototypes were built who knows what it would have been armed and engined with.I guess as a last ditch fighter, engines and guns would have been diverted from whatever was available.Cetot 19:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: the 12 Guns - the M. 20 was designed for eight Browning .303 guns but with the provision for a further four if required - the twelve-gun armament was an official requirement for a short time when there was some doubt over whether cannons were reliable enough to be a suitable alternative, that's why some versions of the Hurricane (the IIB) and Typhoon (the IA) were also 12-gun armed.

RE: the M. 20 engine assemblies - the Merlin "power egg" was a complete engine/radiator installation developed by Rolls-Royce for the Merlin-powered version of the Beaufighter (the Mark II) which was also later used on the M. 20 and Lancaster. The power egg included all the ancillaries (oil tank, etc) needed for the engine and could be 'just bolted on' to the front of any suitable aircraft design - hence the M. 20 and the Lancaster. Some (inaccurate) sources say the PEs were developed for the Lancaster but this is incorrect - the Lancaster benefited from the engine installations having already been developed for the Beaufighter, Chadwick designing a wing for the Lancaster utilising four of them. RE: the Halifax - this used a completely different engine installation for the Merlin, as the Halifax was designed to use Merlins before the PE's were developed and this is why a Merlin-Halifax has different engine nacelles from a Lancaster. Ian Dunster 14:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a picture of a Merlin-powered Beaufighter II showing the Merlin nacelles here: [1] Ian Dunster 13:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification of the details about the guns and engines. Late in coming I know, but just so that you know that your effort is appreciated. Cetot KTo288 (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, you're welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.208 (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact-check[edit]

" In the event, due to dispersal of manufacturing, the Luftwaffe's bombing of the Spitfire and Hurricane factories did not seriously affect production " Is it correct that it was the dispersal that saved the production numbers, or was it the shift of focus into terror-bombing of civilian cities that saved it? BP OMowe (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i have tried to clarify the para. It was really a combination of factors.

IIRC, at the time of the M.20, there were only two factories, Supermarine's at Eastleigh (Spitfire), and Hawker's at Kingston Upon Thames (Hurricane), and Eastleigh had been bombed. In addition, at the time there was also only one factory at Derby producing the Merlin engine. From then on fighter and engine production would be greatly expanded and dispersed to places such as Castle Bromwich and Glasgow.

Performance of Hurricane[edit]

The article states that the M20 fell between the Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane in performance. Actually, if the Hurricane has a Merlin XX too, it is a bit quicker than the M20. JHowardGibson (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a comparison of the Miles M.20 with Hurricanes and Spitfires with equivalent engines. We need to be careful about comparing new, prototype aircraft with aircraft that are in current production. . --JHowardGibson (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]