Prototypical Piston Perfection: The Martin Baker M.B.5

Stargazer · February 16, 2011, 03:11:02 PM

Very nice! I wonder why there are no decent models of the M.B.5 on the market. I'm sure that would be a hit, especially in 1:48 scale!

PR19_Kit · February 16, 2011, 05:35:37 PM

That, Duncan (to quote the old Guiness advert...) is RUDDY MARVELLOUS!

Seriously well done there, I just have to see that for real some time, it's excellent!

NARSES2 · February 17, 2011, 12:50:47 AM

Nice one Duncan.

I was suprised how large it was as well when I finished mine.

Quote from: Stargazer2006 on February 16, 2011, 03:11:02 PM
Very nice! I wonder why there are no decent models of the M.B.5 on the market. I'm sure that would be a hit, especially in 1:48 scale!

The Planet 1/72 kit is very nice (if expensive).

Stargazer · February 17, 2011, 01:04:50 AM

I never realized there was such an overall difference in size. It's incredible!

Mossie · February 17, 2011, 02:32:33 AM

Quote from: Overkiller on February 16, 2011, 11:14:40 PM

Quote from: Mossie on February 16, 2011, 03:01:08 PM
She's a grunty looking girl Dunc!

That she is Simon, one always has this impression that British prop fighters were daintly, pretty little things compared to their oversized, thuggish American counterparts.....

Quote from: Stargazer2006 on February 17, 2011, 01:04:50 AM

I never realized there was such an overall difference in size. It's incredible!

I guess it's mostly down to the Spitfire factor. The Spit was certainly dainty & pretty, although it skews things a bit as apart from the Hornet & possibly the Whirlwind (if I stretch it, the Defiant is dainty-ish, at least for a turret fighter). After that, there were all sorts of ugly & agricultural British fighters/fighter bombers & as development (mostly down to engines) moved on, they got very big.

PR19_Kit · February 17, 2011, 10:45:01 AM

The thing that makes the MB5 LOOK small is its wings. The wings have such a low aspect ratio that you tend to apply 'Mustang scale' to the rest of the aircraft, as it looks so similar, resulting in a false impression of its size.

Kitnut617 and I had a few postings about this a while back and he listed the various dimensions proving the MB5's size compared to other types.

That's one WWII period aircraft I would LOVE to have seen and heard, it's got to have been incredible.

kitnut617 · February 17, 2011, 01:08:05 PM

Quote from: Overkiller on February 16, 2011, 11:14:40 PM

Duncan

This pic illustrates what I've been trying to say for a while now. There's a fellow down at Reno who's supposedly building a 1:1 MB5, but he's using P-51 wings and u/c. If it is 1:1, then he's totally out to lunch.

Mossie · February 17, 2011, 01:36:19 PM

I guess like a lot of replicas, he's just going as close as he can. It'd probably cost an arm, leg & most of the rest of the body to build a perfect MB5.

Doc Yo · February 17, 2011, 01:40:42 PM

I always thought of the MB 5 as smaller myself, but S* boy howdy, she was a beefy brute! ( In a good way )
Very nice looking build of a beautiful aircraft.

Stargazer · February 17, 2011, 02:35:50 PM

Just thinking... This topic on the M.B.5 seems like the perfect occasion to sort of promote my imaginary magazine article on the imaginary U.S. evaluation of the M.B.5 (under the designation XP-74) illustrated with doctored pics and a doctored three-view plan...

If you haven't read it yet, here it is: http://stargazer2006.online.fr/bonus/xp74article.pdf

I'd love to get your impressions some time!

kitnut617 · February 17, 2011, 03:27:12 PM

Duncan,

if you have a Grumman Hellcat in the same scale handy, it would be neat to see them together. Reason being is I found that the MB5 wing is almost a dead ringer to the Hellcat wing from the wingtip back towards the wing fold of the Hellcat. The ailerons are just about the same size and in the same place, the flaps are the same size but of course the MB5's are split flaps whereas the Hellcats aren't.

Robert

PR19_Kit · February 18, 2011, 03:21:46 AM

Quote from: Stargazer2006 on February 17, 2011, 02:35:50 PM
If you haven't read it yet, here it is: http://stargazer2006.online.fr/bonus/xp74article.pdf

I'd love to get your impressions some time!

Stargazer, I just LOVE that story, it's so well presented that it's probably on file at CIA Langley!

An interesting link is that the piccies you used for the P-74 being assembled in the US are actually of John Marlin's Reno-based replica MB5 mentioned above, and it's just about noticable in those pics that although the basic structure of the wing and landing gear is P-51 based he's modified them to such an extent the origins are not obvious.

See another piccie below of the aircraft on display at the Reno races a year or so ago.

kitnut617 · February 18, 2011, 06:46:43 AM

I had a link to John Marlin's website but I've seem to have lost it. From what I understand the fuselage is 1:1 and he used a Shackleton engine, but if you thought before that the original wings were small Kit, the P-51 wings (even modified) are even smaller. It looks like a real world egg-plane.

kitbasher · April 17, 2011, 02:44:01 AM

The title of this thread says it all. What a stunning machine, up there with the Spitfire 19, the Hawker (Sabre) Fury, the Sea Fury, the FW190D-9 and the Bearcat.