Martin-Baker Mb.5 Restoration

falcon409

falcon409

Moderator
Staff member
Taco brought this up a few night's ago during one of our "Flight19" MP sessions. I knew I had seen it somewhere and so I'm posting this to see what the general consensus is. I understand that the "original" prototype image in black&white is just that. . .a prototype, however, since it was never produced in any numbers I would consider that the best template with which to build a "replica". Now take a look at the one that is supposedly being built as an exact replica. Is it me, or this smaller than the original airplane and with a much stubbier nose?
 
After doing some more searching, it appears that while the "Spirit" of the Mb.5 is being adhered to, the actual proportions are not. Since there were no parts remaining from the original aircraft, the builder (John Marlin) has had to rely on various aircraft parts and a lot of sheet metal work, to get it to the point of being able to fly. The nose is indeed stubbier and supposedly that was done for aerodynamic reasons. . .despite the fact that test pilots at the time described the Mb.5 as one of the nicest fighters they had ever flown.
 
It's not you.... The plane on the left is shorter and the fuselage looks like something else altogether. The canopy on the "Replica" is much more forward on the fuselage than it is on the plane in the photo on the right. The plane on the right (which is a real M.B.5) is longer and much more "streamlined" in terms of overall appearance. The plane on the left... although it has the look of the M.B.5, is not an exact replica.

There were 2 M.B.5's built, both prototypes. When shown to the RAF, and other powers that be, in a demonstration, the M.B.5 surpassed all performance levels and combat capabilities... over every current aircraft in the RAF. Since the Second World War was near its end and the allies had already dominated the skies over Germany with the Spitfire, Mustang, and the Thunderbolt... Britian felt that there was no need to put the M.B.5 into production. Still, the M.B.5 would have been a formidable opponent for Luftwaffe pilots, it was an excellent warplane design.

BB686:USA-flag:
 
Blackbird686 said:
It's not you.... The plane on the left is shorter and the fuselage looks like something else altogether.
BB686:USA-flag:
Click to expand...

IMHO just looks like someone wanted an excuse to put a RR Griffon with contra-rotating props on a P-51....(ducks incoming... :icon_lol: )

ttfn

Pete
 
Back when the Alpha MB5 was released I read up on the real plane a little. The prototypes' development was protracted to say the least and the prototype didn't fly until 1944. An historical tidbit quoted from an article I read: "historical record shows that, excluding derivatives of in-service models, no new piston-engine fighter types entering prototype after mid-1942 saw service during the war". Not sure if that is accurate (can't believe everything you read on the internet, and all...) but it shows a possible reason why we didn't see squadrons of them.
 
pfflyers said:
Back when the Alpha MB5 was released I read up on the real plane a little. The prototypes' development was protracted to say the least and the prototype didn't fly until 1944. An historical tidbit quoted from an article I read: "historical record shows that, excluding derivatives of in-service models, no new piston-engine fighter types entering prototype after mid-1942 saw service during the war". Not sure if that is accurate (can't believe everything you read on the internet, and all...) but it shows a possible reason why we didn't see squadrons of them.
Click to expand...
Yea, that is correct, as mentioned earlier in this thread. It was prototyped, the test pilots flew it, loved it and gave it their blessings, then the Government decided it wasn't needed since the War was coming to a close and the only flying version was eventually destroyed (on purpose). Various accounts have it being cut up, burned or simply dismantled and left to rot.:salute:
 
Interesting aircraft and thread falcon409.

That picture's really stretching the meaning of restoration beyond its limits.
I simply can't see the likeness with the MB.

pfflyers; your data sounds about right - by post '42, the industry was geared up to keeping up quotas on proven workhorses and their derivatives.

Longterm MOD and decisionmaker's eyes were very much on gas turbine power development.
 
My impression of the colour photo is that its been taken with a wide angle lens very close to the aircraft giving it a distorted appearance.......
Keith
 
IIRC, it wasn't just the performance that made the MB.5 a brilliant aircraft, it was the way they built it, structurally, to be an easy to maintain fighter. Also, I remember reading glowing reports of the cockpit layout as well.
 
Blackbird686 said:
Now that you mention it...:pop4: You're absolutely right, mate.

BB686:USA-flag:
Click to expand...

not you too... right i'm replacing the blanks in the Oerlikon with live rounds now! :icon_lol:

always have loved the MB.5... the UK Aircraft Industry until the mid-late 70's really was ahead of it's time... from the 40's we had things like the MB.5, the Vulcan (Original concept dated in 1947!), into the Lightning era (My grandfathers favourite, ended his career just after being on Lightning Propulsion tech at Lyneham with the LTF), then there was the TSR.2 *drools*.... that thing is STILL current! heck it could outrun a lightning with just 1 of it's engines in Reheat compared to both of the Lightnings, the Harrier, the Hawk... then it all kinda went downhill after there really... :(

MB.5 Cockpit:
mb5Image3.jpg
 
I've been all over the aircraft in question; and it's not as bad as it seems! Plus the referenced photo is distorted for sure.

Joseph
 
Matt Wynn said:
not you too... right i'm replacing the blanks in the Oerlikon with live rounds now! :icon_lol:

always have loved the MB.5... the UK Aircraft Industry until the mid-late 70's really was ahead of it's time... from the 40's we had things like the MB.5, the Vulcan (Original concept dated in 1947!), into the Lightning era (My grandfathers favourite, ended his career just after being on Lightning Propulsion tech at Lyneham with the LTF), then there was the TSR.2 *drools*.... that thing is STILL current! heck it could outrun a lightning with just 1 of it's engines in Reheat compared to both of the Lightnings, the Harrier, the Hawk... then it all kinda went downhill after there really... :(

MB.5 Cockpit:
mb5Image3.jpg
Click to expand...

You have to admit... that photo of the plane on the left has the look of a P-51 also. I have 2 versions of the M.B.5, one is the Alphasim version (With a TON of repaints... fictional of course), and the other is Tim Conrad's model for FS9. Tims model seems to have a bit more visual detail, but I only have the 2 repaints that he did for that one, Fictional JEOJ and the original prototype he did for the FS9 model. Both the Alpha and the Piglet model have their good points, and subtile differences. Both are still given equal flight time in my sim.

There was a bit more to the final nail being driven into the M.B.5 project, besides the fact that WWII was pretty much over when the plane first flew in 1944.

BB686:USA-flag:
 
fsxar177 said:
I've been all over the aircraft in question; and it's not as bad as it seems! Plus the referenced photo is distorted for sure.
Joseph
Click to expand...
There is considerable information about the original aircraft as well as the "Replica". I don't refer to it as a restoration because that infers that an original aircraft in some form or fashion is being restored to it's former beauty and that isn't the case here. This is an aircraft built from spare parts, few if any of which are from wartime stock of the prototype. While the photo may be distorted, the distortion is not all photographic. The nose was shortened, as was the wing span to improve stability, which considering the original was deemed "perfect" seems a bit of a surprise.

The Alphasim model is quite nice, has the correct proportions and flies beautifully. I'm in the process of doing my FSX texture updates and when finished I'll have a "one off" beauty for my hangar.:salute:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top