Martin Baker Fighters

[Kerrillc]

I bought Aeroplane Monthly and I remembered seeing an article the Martin-Baker fighters especially the slab sided version without the tail fin. It does look rather intriguing. In fact I had a thought about the MB2 as I had seen some art about its use in combat (perfect example of what-if eh?).

I looked at some notes about aviation art websites I made and made the connection. John Dell has a nice picture of an MB2 in action and I looked as he has added some more very interesting pictures, one being an MB2 shooting a HE111 down.

In case anyone's interested here is the address: http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/Aart.htm.

The pictures certainly caught my attention.

[PR19_Kit]

Kerrilic,

Mr Dell is DEFINITELY one of us! 

So glad you posted that link, he some very inspiring stuff there. Reminds me that I WISH someone would make a Blackburn B20, an amazing aircraft indeed.

Robert,

I see what you mean about the MB5's wings, but as the span is so short compared to its length, they LOOK tiny! 

I compared them to a Spitfire 21 wing and the area is almost the same, and so is the span, but the MB5's wing still looks smaller. Perhaps it's because the fuselage is really quite large, it sure is tall!

[kitnut617]

Robert,

I see what you mean about the MB5's wings, but as the span is so short compared to its length, they LOOK tiny!  

It threw me for quite a while too Kit, the visual effect is quite deceiving.  When I get a chance I'll do a MB.5, Spit, Mustang comparison but these two are further down in the box.

[Weaver]

I agree with the comment made by R.G. Worcester (The Aeroplanes's test pilot who flew the M.B. 5) alluding that it would have been good on a carrier deck:

• Widetrack landing gear
• Good over the nose visibility
• Powerful engine with contro-props (thus no torque effect)
• Good range

The only problem with that is that you can't land a contra-prop on a carrier before the invention of the angled deck. If a single prop goes into the barrier it bends back and then it stops. If a contra-prop goes into the barrier, the front blades bend back until they hit the back blades, then it explodes....

On fins, there's an interesting article in this month's Aircraft magazine by a French guy who owns a single-prop Griffon Spitfire and a Sea Fury. While he loves the Spit, he's adamant that the Sea Fury is MUCH easier to fly, and that fin area is the culprit. Apparently the Spit needs large but sensitive amounts of rudder from the moment it starts rolling, and will bite badly if handled hamfistedly.

[PR19_Kit]

The only problem with that is that you can't land a contra-prop on a carrier before the invention of the angled deck. If a single prop goes into the barrier it bends back and then it stops. If a contra-prop goes into the barrier, the front blades bend back until they hit the back blades, then it explodes....

Really?

Perhaps the Fleet Air Arm should have known that before they tried to land their Seafire 47s, Wyverns, Gannets and Sturgeons on their straight deck carriers...... 

[Weaver]

The only problem with that is that you can't land a contra-prop on a carrier before the invention of the angled deck. If a single prop goes into the barrier it bends back and then it stops. If a contra-prop goes into the barrier, the front blades bend back until they hit the back blades, then it explodes....

Really?

Perhaps the Fleet Air Arm should have known that before they tried to land their Seafire 47s, Wyverns, Gannets and Sturgeons on their straight deck carriers......  

Pretty sure that's what it says in BSP-3, but I havn't got it in front of me so I may have got the wrong end of the stick. Perhaps it's an added risk rather than a deal-breaker?

Looking at that list:

Last RN axial deck landing: 1955 on Triumph.

Seafire 47: fair comment.

Wyvern: Entered service May '53, first deployment '54 on Albion which never had an angled deck, so it must have done axial deck ops. Can't have done them for long though, given the '55 date above for last axial op ever.

Gannet: Initial deployment at sea Apr '54 on Eagle, which received an interim angled deck in "'54-'55". Might have done axial deck ops briefly (not got time for more research), but couldn't have been for long, if at all.

Sturgeon: Never used from carriers as far as I can tell? All operational aircraft were target tugs based on Malta or as RNAS Ford.

All info gleaned from Wikipedia and other on-line sources in a bit of a rush, so apologies if it's wrong.

[kitnut617]

As the earlier MB.3 was powered by the Sabre, I've always thought that the MB.5 was supposed to get one to.  The fuselage certainly is designed for a larger engine to be installed and I've been playing with the idea of getting a couple (or more) of the Falcon kits and installing different engines on them.  One would get a similar nose to the Wyvern TF.1 with the mighty RR Eagle, another I would use something similar to the Sabre VII engined Fury, even another could get a Centaurus.  I think with these heavier engines the aircraft would take on a more pugnacious look, something like a Bearcat I think.

[pyro-manic]

Python turboprop?

[kitnut617]

I think that's a tad too big Alun, the Griffon looks kinda lost up front there in the MB.5, but likewise so does the RR Eagle in the Wyvern

[NARSES2]

Sturgeon: Never used from carriers as far as I can tell? All operational aircraft were target tugs based on Malta or as RNAS Ford.

All info gleaned from Wikipedia and other on-line sources in a bit of a rush, so apologies if it's wrong.

Just a bit on the Sturgeon from Putnams. The second prototype took part in carrier trails from Implacable in  june 1948. Sturgeon TT 2's were used from carriers for Fleet gunnery practice, air to air firing excercises, photographic marking and radar calibration. Must admit didn't know this myself until I looked it up

[PR19_Kit]

Just a bit on the Sturgeon from Putnams. The second prototype took part in carrier trails from Implacable in  june 1948. Sturgeon TT 2's were used from carriers for Fleet gunnery practice, air to air firing excercises, photographic marking and radar calibration. Must admit didn't know this myself until I looked it up

Indeed, I saw a piccie of a Sturgeon landing on a light fleet carrier only last night, which is why I mentioned it.

It's in a small softback called 'The Fleet Air Arm in Focus, part II'. There's also piccies of the Blackburn YB1 and the Supermarine Seagull ASR1 landing on Illustrious in 1949-50 too, both contra-prop fitted. I doubt the Seagull would have had a problem though, the props are MILES above the deck and well aft of the nose.

[Note to self :- MUST build the Whirlybirds Seagull kit soon!]

[jcf]

Half way between MB3 and MB5:



Regards,

Greg

MB4, then or maybe not? 

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7053.0.html

[PR19_Kit]

I reckon that's an MB4 1/2......... 

[The Wooksta!]

Rotting somewhere in a box is an MB5 I'd converted with a Matchbox Tempest II engine.  Wrote off the u/c so it was abandoned.  There's also an Eagle engined one somewhere, although with that I used the Eagle Tempest front end.

[NARSES2]

It's in a small softback called 'The Fleet Air Arm in Focus, part II'. There's also piccies of the Blackburn YB1 and the Supermarine Seagull ASR1 landing on Illustrious in 1949-50 too, both contra-prop fitted. I doubt the Seagull would have had a problem though, the props are MILES above the deck and well aft of the nose.

[Note to self :- MUST build the Whirlybirds Seagull kit soon!]

Forgot about the Seagull and I've seen pics of it on a carrier as well  Looking forward to the Olimp (Pro-resin) kit