Martin-Baker MB 5

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by Baizer84, Oct 25, 2012.

  1. Baizer84

    Baizer84 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    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.
     
  2. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,179
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    I don't believe it held any performance advantage over the Spitfire 20-series, which were already in production.
     
  3. Baizer84

    Baizer84 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    I don't know about this but I do know that it was HIGHLY regarded by test pilots.
     
  4. CobberKane

    CobberKane Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2012
    Messages:
    706
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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..
     
  5. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,179
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    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.
     
  6. Edgar Brooks

    Edgar Brooks Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Occupation:
    professionally retired
    Location:
    High Wycombe, England (home of the Mosquito)
    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.
     
  7. CobberKane

    CobberKane Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2012
    Messages:
    706
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Curse you, Whittle! And wasn't the Spiteful a dog, anyway?
     
  8. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,200
    Likes Received:
    784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
  9. Gixxerman

    Gixxerman Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    517
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Occupation:
    retired
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    +1 CobberKan.

    Unusual looks but it certainly looks like it could do a job!
     
  10. woljags

    woljags Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    glazier/vintage car restoration
    Location:
    maidenhead uk
    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
     
  11. woljags

    woljags Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    glazier/vintage car restoration
    Location:
    maidenhead uk
    nice find Flyboy,i'd love to see it myself
     
  12. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,179
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    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.
     
  13. wuzak

    wuzak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    4,179
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hobart Tasmania
    btw, as I understand it the second MB3 prototype, which was never completed, was modified to create the MB5 prototype.
     
  14. buffnut453

    buffnut453 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    2,174
    Likes Received:
    227
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Virginia, US of A
    MB3...now there was a cool-looking aeroplane, particularly if they had ever fitted it with the blown canopy. Simply GORGEOUS!!!
     
  15. stona

    stona Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    7,523
    Likes Received:
    947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Very probably,they shared the same serial R2496.

    Steve
     
  16. R Pope

    R Pope Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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.
     
Loading...

Share This Page