Miles M.20
by last date | by total length | by number


LATEST COMMENTS

28.03.2024 13:52

Short S.8/8 Rangoon

27.03.2024 22:04

25.03.2024 18:02

25.03.2024 04:10

22.03.2024 19:36

21.03.2024 23:56

Robin HR.200

21.03.2024 14:54

20.03.2024 19:36

20.03.2024 18:42

20.03.2024 14:05

Blackburn B-101 Beverley

19.03.2024 02:12

18.03.2024 22:06

Supermarine Spitfire

18.03.2024 22:02

Canadair CL-41 "Tutor"

18.03.2024 16:30

Bachem Ba 349 Natter

18.03.2024 14:47

18.03.2024 03:41

Curtiss Eagle

18.03.2024 00:04

17.03.2024 20:30

Junkers Ju 390

17.03.2024 16:34

AIDC Ching-Kuo

17.03.2024 10:52

15.03.2024 23:56

Messerschmitt Me 309

14.03.2024 07:03

Bartel BM.2

14.03.2024 07:02

14.03.2024 07:02

14.03.2024 07:02

Boeing B-50

14.03.2024 07:01

Beech Model 18

14.03.2024 07:01

14.03.2024 07:01

14.03.2024 07:01

Beech Model 2000 Starship

14.03.2024 07:00


BHH, 17.08.2022 06:33

Staggering that for all it's quick production and fixed landing gear this thing had comparable performance to the Hurricane. If only it had been developed a couple years earlier. I bet we would have seen some in British/Allied service in N. Africa or the far east...


Andy Perks, e-mail, 17.07.2016 19:24

The point of the aircraft was to be available at short notice if production of the Spitfire and Hurricane had been interrupted by enemy action, this never happened so they weren't needed. As for the Buffalo the fastest climbing and most manuoeverable models were the original ones that were sent to Finland. The later models were overloaded and despit being faster suffered in all other aspects of their performance.


sven, 30.09.2015 18:18

And that particular mark of the Buffalo was yet to gain the weight that was its downfall in terms of performance.


BHH, 30.09.2015 05:43

@ John Blackburn-
The Buffalo did so well for the Fins because it was up against aircraft even MORE primitive than it! Literally biplane soviet fighters in many cases.


brian hope, e-mail, 21.07.2013 00:21

According to information I have, the M20 was faster than the hurricanes, slower than the spits (at the time of its first flight) but more manouverable than both and had a greater range than both and carried more ammunition.

Seeing as it was an almost all wood construction aircraft, I doubt it would have been very successful in the far east or any other humid climate. No doubt it would have suffered as the early Mosquitos did with the glue problem.

None-the-less, a great airplane that missed its chance because the Luftwaffe was beaten in the BofB.I'm sure it could have been developed into a very formidable fighter.


Barry, 14.05.2012 11:49

The reason the Finns did so well with a plane that really was a heap of junk was that they were up against a badly trained force using even more inferior equipment.Whereas the RAF were outflown and out performed by superior planes and superior pilots (at that time).


Concerned Observer, 22.07.2011 16:19

"...and even in a service that never received a decent domestic fighter"

[cough]Sea Harrier[cough]


Ward Emigh, e-mail, 27.04.2011 00:37

I drew plans(23%)and built the Miles M.20/4. Powered by a 3W-80 gas engine. Flies like a pattern plane and has exceptional low speed performace because of the 21% thich wing (NACA 23021). Color: upper side camouflage (RAF Dark Earth & RAF Dark Green with underside Trainer Yellow.


John Blackburn, e-mail, 13.04.2011 15:23

A side issue, but IF the Brewster Buffalo was so hopeless, why did the Finns do so WELL with theirs?


Kadesh, 16.02.2011 19:14

Some sources say it carried ten .30 cals, where does that come from?


Tim Harris, e-mail, 04.04.2010 00:00

Fantastic Aircraft which shows that Britain didn't think it was doing too bad in the Battle of Britain or it would have been produced. There is a free card model in 1/72 scale at http://www.papermodelers.com and at http://kampfflieger.webs.com there is a model of the Martin Baker MB2 at a modest price which is very similar and the foreunner of the MB5 which according to Eric Brown it was the best propellor driven aircraft of WW2 - and he should know, he flew all of them.

Tim


Martin, e-mail, 27.03.2010 13:38

I'd guess it was the standard brown and green camouflage of the time with pale blue undersides


angel, e-mail, 21.02.2010 23:28

Does anyone know of plans/kit with a 75-80 inch wing span?

thanks

angel, Spain


Art deco, 10.07.2009 04:55

Although relatively appealing, the M.20 wasn't a good handler. It was tested for naval use, and even in a service that never received a decent domestic fighter, was rejected, even for throw-away cam-ship use. It's use in tropical climate would have subjected it to the same problems that befell the Mossie. Dissimilar wood shrinkage and glue that becomes cheese. Perhaps, if it were fitted with something aerodynamically similar to DH Mossie outer wing panels, it coulda been a contender...


Rich, e-mail, 16.02.2009 18:43

Does anyone know of plans/kit with a 75-80 inch wing span?


Bill Krouwel, e-mail, 15.01.2009 21:19

What a brilliant aircraft - faster (and appaently more manoevrable) than a Hurricane, aand with better range.

It's a shame that MIles weren't allowed to produce it for , e.g. the far East where it would have been far more effective against Japanese Zeroes than the appalling Brewster Buffalo proved to be...no match, possibly, but a muich better chance of doing a fair bit of damage...


ward emigh, e-mail, 18.05.2007 06:09

What is the color scheme of this M.20 ( U-0228 )aircraft?
I am drawing plans for an 8 ft. wing span R/C model.




All the World's Rotorcraft


Virtual Aircraft Museum