Martin Baker MB5

[PR19_Kit]

A wet wing would make lots of sense. (I sound like a stuck record.............)

[jcf]

Well, at least wing tanks, wet-wings in period had a shed-load of problems as the available sealing
materials couldn't take the combination of the solvent characteristics of petrol combined with structural
flex/vibration. Bag tanks are a possibility.

[NARSES2]

200 gal tanks would be a mistake as the size would have a very negative effect on drag.
~115-135 would make more sense as the big 165 US drop tanks were generally only used
for ferry purposes, and 200 gal tanks would be big.

So a couple of 115 gallon tanks (is that US or Imperial by the way ?) would give it a range of approximately 2,200 miles ? Or am I being simplistic ?

[kitnut617]

200 gal tanks would be a mistake as the size would have a very negative effect on drag.
~115-135 would make more sense as the big 165 US drop tanks were generally only used
for ferry purposes, and 200 gal tanks would be big.

So a couple of 115 gallon tanks (is that US or Imperial by the way ?) would give it a range of approximately 2,200 miles ? Or am I being simplistic ?

Yup!  what Jon says makes sense but I think I'll stick with the 200 Gal tanks on my builds. Reason is I'm re-engining my two I'm going to build.  One will have a Sabre VII or VIII engine (over 3000 hp) and the other will have a proposed version of the Centaurus. This engine would be similar to the Centaurus' planned for the Vickers Type 'C' bomber which, if I've read it correctly, would have a similar arrangement to the P-47. That is by having a supercharger and a turbocharger and also 3000+ hp range. My plan is to use the radiator duct for the turbocharger, oil cooler, intercooler and air intake with the exhaust stub/s protruding out either underneath the fuselage or out the sides and bifurcated at the rear of the duct. It would mean that the internal tankage would have to be reduced for all the plumbing to run under the tanks

Here's a few pics of the MB5 prototype I've already built with a pair of DH Hornet 200 Gal tanks hanging under the wings, they don't look too out of place ----  I've positioned them in line to where the internal tanks were so what you see is about the right place for them.

[Old Wombat]

200 gal tanks would be a mistake as the size would have a very negative effect on drag.
~115-135 would make more sense as the big 165 US drop tanks were generally only used
for ferry purposes, and 200 gal tanks would be big.

So a couple of 115 gallon tanks (is that US or Imperial by the way ?) would give it a range of approximately 2,200 miles ? Or am I being simplistic ?

I'm sorry but just adding range is being simplistic. Each tank adds a weight & drag penalty which reduces the effective range by a certain amount.

That being said, so is the statement of range for an aircraft (or almost any other vehicle/vessel/craft) without stating the over-all weight, temperature, humidity, altitude, speed, wind direction, et alia ad nauseum.

As a rule of thumb I'd reduce the extra range by about 5% to get a more reasonable result.

[NARSES2]

Thanks Old Wombat. I thought that was the case but I thought I'd ask anyway 

[jcf]

200 gal tanks would be a mistake as the size would have a very negative effect on drag.
~115-135 would make more sense as the big 165 US drop tanks were generally only used
for ferry purposes, and 200 gal tanks would be big.

So a couple of 115 gallon tanks (is that US or Imperial by the way ?) would give it a range of approximately 2,200 miles ? Or am I being simplistic ?

I'm sorry but just adding range is being simplistic. Each tank adds a weight & drag penalty which reduces the effective range by a certain amount.

That being said, so is the statement of range for an aircraft (or almost any other vehicle/vessel/craft) without stating the over-all weight, temperature, humidity, altitude, speed, wind direction, et alia ad nauseum.

As a rule of thumb I'd reduce the extra range by about 5% to get a more reasonable result.

Yep, Merrick's Halifax book has one the best examples of this as it details the range vs. weight (fuel, oil and bomb-load) tradeoffs by each variant.

[The Wooksta!]

"Ah hah! Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha! Driving instructor my bottom! You're a vampire and there's no denying it!"

Right. As mentioned in me "Not a Spitfire Blog", I have finally found my half built MB3.  Which means we have all the aircraft that Martin-Baker designed for the RAF, or will when I get this beastie done.

I also have the twin engined 12 gun fighter.  This will have to be an observer's model as it's just a shape and I'm not forking out the wadge for Unicrap's parcel of cack.

Somewhere, I have the drawings for the MB6, which was to have been a jet fuselage with MB5 flying surfaces.  It looks to be possible with an Attacker fuselage modified with a nose intake - a Meteor NF engine intake should take care of that - and I have a Falcon vacform which will do for the wings.  The tail surfaces I'll just nick a set of MB5 ones.  Plenty of them sitting here.

So, we should have a decent little mini theme at Telford.

[PR19_Kit]

So, we should have a decent little mini theme at Telford.

If everyone else finishes their MB5s it'll be a MAXI-theme. 

It's great you found the MB3 Lee. 

[The Wooksta!]

I'm hoping I can lay my hands on another couple of kits. I'd ideally like to do the highback too.

There's another reason I'd like another few MB3s - there's a drawing of the proposed MB4 in Tony Buttler's "British Experimental Combat Aircraft of WWII" and it looks like the highback MB3 but with a Griffon power egg.  Something else to think about...

Isn't AZ thinking about doing an MB3?

[TsrJoe]

iv the MB.6 and 'MB.7 delta' built and finished albeit in display model form if you want them to fill a space in the theme

cheers, joe

[The Wooksta!]

That's great, Joe.  Most helpful.

[James W.]

Some might find these 'Flight' articles on the MB-5 of interest..

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1945/1945%20-%202359.html

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1947/1947%20-%202144.html

It could be fun to do a line-up of the R-R Griffon powered prototypes,
CA-15; Hawker Fury; MB-5; Sea Fang/Spiteful, (& its incredible - that none, not even one.. of the lot of them, was preserved)

Or maybe a fantasy Reno Air Race type - line up of the final & fastest piston engine powered Brits

The MB-5 was in fact (according to F.K. Mason in  'The British Fighter Since 1915') prepared for an attempt on the pre-war Me 109R air-speed record,
- but typically... the powers-that-be , put the kybosh on that, wanting the speed record accolade focus - firmly on the new-fangled Meatbox jet.

[PR19_Kit]

Or maybe a fantasy Reno Air Race type - line up of the final & fastest piston engine powered Brits

[wuzak]

It could be fun to do a line-up of the R-R Griffon powered prototypes,
CA-15; Hawker Fury; MB-5; Sea Fang/Spiteful, (& its incredible - that none, not even one.. of the lot of them, was preserved)

In terms of speed the order would be:

Spiteful, MB-5, CA-15, Hawker Fury - for the Griffon prototype versions.

The Fury prototype would be #2 if you counted the Sabre prototype.