Martin Baker MB5

[kitnut617]

The notes in Vol.VII of Aircraft of the Fighting Powers for the MB5 say 1200 mile range. Now the notes for the Tempest Mk.II says it's normal range was 1000 miles, giving it a tactical radius of action of 500 miles.

Cheers mate.

So perhaps 600 mile radius. Might need to carry tanks, but otherwise 

I'm going to put a couple of 200 gal tanks on one of my MB5's

[kitnut617]

For comparison, the notes for the P-51H say it had a range of 3560 miles

Eh? That's trans-Atlantic range, and I can't recall any Mustangs being capable of that. Presumably with BIG external tanks if it's true.

That's over 1700 miles radius of action Kit, the F-82 had a similar range, just over 3000 miles

Indeed, but the P-82 had lots more tankage.

But it had two Merlins. -----  at least the one I quoted from the book did

[PR19_Kit]

For comparison, the notes for the P-51H say it had a range of 3560 miles

Eh? That's trans-Atlantic range, and I can't recall any Mustangs being capable of that. Presumably with BIG external tanks if it's true.

That's over 1700 miles radius of action Kit, the F-82 had a similar range, just over 3000 miles

Indeed, but the P-82 had lots more tankage.

But it had two Merlins. -----  at least the one I quoted from the book did

And more than twice the fuel of two P-51s.............

[kitnut617]

For comparison, the notes for the P-51H say it had a range of 3560 miles

Eh? That's trans-Atlantic range, and I can't recall any Mustangs being capable of that. Presumably with BIG external tanks if it's true.

That's over 1700 miles radius of action Kit, the F-82 had a similar range, just over 3000 miles

Indeed, but the P-82 had lots more tankage.

But it had two Merlins. -----  at least the one I quoted from the book did

And more than twice the fuel of two P-51s.............

P-51H had 255 gals carried internally and one 2000+ hp Merlin
F-82B had 574 gals carried internally and two 2000+ hp Merlins

The F-82 was based on the P-51H fuselage

[jcf]

The 2,900 mile range for the P-51H is with two of the big 165-gal. drop-tanks used for ferrying,
rather than combat missions.

[PR19_Kit]

I rest my case............

[kitnut617]

I rest my case............

OK, you win ----   

[kitnut617]

I've been doing a internet search to try and find out what the internal fuel capacity is for the MB5. I found two pages which agree with each other (although one was a Russian site) and they say 200 Gals (Imp) in two tanks, both in the fuselage with 70 Gals in front of the cockpit and 130 Gals behind the cockpit.  Considering the size of the aircraft, I'd have thought there would have been space for more. Does anyone have different information ?

[andrewj]

But it had two Merlins. -----  at least the one I quoted from the book did
[/quote]


Not Merlins , but two Alison V1710's in the F82

[jcf]

P/F-82 used both Merlins and Allison depending on variant.

[kitnut617]

But it had two Merlins. -----  at least the one I quoted from the book did

Not Merlins , but two Alison V1710's in the F82

XP-82, P-82B, P-82C and P-82D were all powered by Packard Merlins

[PR19_Kit]

I've been doing a internet search to try and find out what the internal fuel capacity is for the MB5. I found two pages which agree with each other (although one was a Russian site) and they say 200 Gals (Imp) in two tanks, both in the fuselage with 70 Gals in front of the cockpit and 130 Gals behind the cockpit.  Considering the size of the aircraft, I'd have thought there would have been space for more. Does anyone have different information ?

There's a discussion about this elsewhere Robert, but I'm damned if I can find it.

This cutaway shows you where they are, the pilot's pretty well sitting IN them, for goodness sake!  They're the two L shaped shaded bits that are underneath, and forward and aft of his seat. I have a MUCH larger hi res version of this drawing if you'd like it, and it shows the tank's capacity as 200 galls. as you described.



I have the same opinion as you, there's LOTS more space for fuel in the airframe, the wings are totally dry for a start. This was why my PR3 version had a wet wing and the camera bay was where the real fuel tanks are,

[kitnut617]

I looked at that cutaway drawing but now you point them out, they appear really clear where they are. I'd like a higher res picture of if please Kit, thanks very much.

So, if the MB5 has a range of 1100 miles (550 radius of action), if I put on two 200 Gal drop tanks, it would have three times the range wouldn't it.

[PR19_Kit]

I looked at that cutaway drawing but now you point them out, they appear really clear where they are. I'd like a higher res picture of if please Kit, thanks very much.

So, if the MB5 has a range of 1100 miles (550 radius of action), if I put on two 200 Gal drop tanks, it would have three times the range wouldn't it.

Yes............ 

I'll email you the big cutaway, it's 2.7 megs, vastly too big for here.

[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.