Martin-Baker MB 5

[Baizer84]

What could have been with this beautiful machine? I know it just came along to late to see much use but how could it have done in a combat role? In my opinion, it was the most beautiful aircraft of WW2.

 

[wuzak]

I don't believe it held any performance advantage over the Spitfire 20-series, which were already in production.

 

[Baizer84]

I don't believe it held any performance advantage over the Spitfire 20-series, which were already in production.

I don't know about this but I do know that it was HIGHLY regarded by test pilots.

 

[CobberKane]

Kinda looks like the love child of P51D and a Spit XIV, doesn't it? Alas, another couldabeen, rendered obslete overnight by that bloody Frank Whittle..

 

[wuzak]

I don't know about this but I do know that it was HIGHLY regarded by test pilots.

Well, the MB5 was said to handle quite well, but that doesn't mean it was better than the Spitfire 21/22/24.

• The MB5 had the same top speed as the Spitfire, within 2 or 3 mph, using the same engine
• The MB5 outrolled the Spitfire, but
• The Spitfire out-turned the MB5
• The Spitfire out-climbed the MB-5 by a good margin
• The MB5 may have had a longer range, but it was not that much more

Supermarine's Spiteful, which appeared around the same time, was faster with the same engine.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

The M.B.5 was not tested until April/May/June 1946, by Boscombe Down, and the Attacker prototype first flew in August 1946. The Vampire I had already flown, by then, and the Meteor had been in service for two years; the M.B.5 had no chance.

 

[CobberKane]

Curse you, Whittle! And wasn't the Spiteful a dog, anyway?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Here ya go guys, chew on this...

Airport and Airplanes | Around the Pattern

I actually seen this aircraft about 4 or 5 years ago.

 

[Gixxerman]

+1 CobberKan.

Unusual looks but it certainly looks like it could do a job!

 

[woljags]

basically i thought the spiteful was used as a test bed for the wings etc as used on the attacker or am i wrong,it was the seafang that was one development too far

 

[woljags]

nice find Flyboy,i'd love to see it myself

 

[wuzak]

basically i thought the spiteful was used as a test bed for the wings etc as used on the attacker or am i wrong,it was the seafang that was one development too far

No, the Spiteful was always the intended recipient of Supermarine's laminar flow wing. Supermarines had been working on the wing from mid war - '41 or '42 IIRC, that is long before the Attacker was conceived. Actually, the Attacker was conceived as the Jet Spiteful.

The Seafang was an attempt to find a market for the Spiteful, as the RAF was moving into jets.

Whether or not the Spiteful/Seafang was as good as the Spitfire/Seafire is kind of a moot point - the latter were already in production, and by the time the former could be put into production there would be no need for them.

 

[wuzak]

btw, as I understand it the second MB3 prototype, which was never completed, was modified to create the MB5 prototype.

 

[buffnut453]

MB3...now there was a cool-looking aeroplane, particularly if they had ever fitted it with the blown canopy. Simply GORGEOUS!!!

 

[stona]

btw, as I understand it the second MB3 prototype, which was never completed, was modified to create the MB5 prototype.

Very probably,they shared the same serial R2496.

Steve

 

[R Pope]

MB aircraft were designed with maintenance in mind, the mechanics loved them! Lots of access panels with nothing hidden away in inaccessible nooks and crannies.