« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Motivations  (Read 4175 times)

Offline OOZ662

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7019
Couldn't think of anything better.
« Reply #60 on: January 12, 2006, 12:49:31 AM »
Logged
A Rook who first flew 09/26/03 at the age of 13, has been a GL in 10+ Scenarios, and was two-time Points and First Annual 68KO Cup winner of the AH Extreme Air Racing League.

Offline KD303

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Motivations
« Reply #61 on: January 12, 2006, 07:26:46 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by sullie363
Wow what is that?


Just a little something by a company that decided to make ejector seats.
It's the Martin Baker MB5.
An outstanding piston aircraft that was never put into prodution. Firstly because the war ended and secondly because the jet age arrived. Still a mystery though, because the Supermarine Spiteful (as well as several other piston driven fighters) did go into production. In fact, the MB5 could have been put into production in time to see service before the end of the war.
It was powered by the 2340HP RR Griffon 83 which drove a pair of three blade counter rotating props. It had some excellent design features, used torsion bar operated flight controls , had a very wide track undercart  and a very well layed out cockpit including single lever fuel control and very good forward views. Four  Hispano cannon (of course) with Martin Baker feed mechanism were fitted. A top speed of 460mph, strong rate of climb and exceptional robustness would have made for a fine fighter.
I've always thought it a great shame that the MB5 didn't go into production. If it had been used operationally in the war, I'm sure it would have become one of the classics.
There is a replica MB5 in the USA.
 
KD
Logged

Offline Edbert

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2220
      • http://www.edbert.net
Motivations
« Reply #62 on: January 12, 2006, 09:21:43 AM »
This thread should be stickified.

Good work all!
Logged

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Motivations
« Reply #63 on: January 12, 2006, 09:59:42 AM »
When I first saw it I thought it was some bizarre modified P-51.
Logged
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Motivations
« Reply #64 on: January 12, 2006, 10:12:51 AM »
Basically they wanted to use principles that had already been tested, so I bet the P51 did influence it a LOT.

One major reason it didn't go into service was the contra props. Historically they were not effective in WW2. For a single engined plane they added far too much weight for the gearbox, and it offset any gains made by the 2x props (really only 50% more prop blades than a P51). Same problem with spits that had contra props. They mucked things up and conventional solutions proved to be just as qualified.
Logged

Offline Morpheus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10231
Motivations
« Reply #65 on: January 12, 2006, 10:45:17 AM »
Wrong krusty.

With other high-po fighters already in production and jet fighters well on their way to taking the spotlight the MB5 remained a prototype. The Mb5 went faster, further, and had better maneuverability than mustang. The biggest hurdle which Martin Baker never over stepped was gaining the confidence in the brits to accept his design into full scale production.
Logged
If you don't receive Jesus Christ, you don't receive the gift of righteousness.

Be A WARRIOR NOT A WORRIER!

Offline icemaw

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2057
Motivations
« Reply #66 on: January 13, 2006, 07:01:51 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
And of course:

 This one should be kiddie molester
Logged
Army of Das Muppets     
Member DFC Furballers INC. If you cant piss with big dogs go run with the pack

Offline guttboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1408
Motivations
« Reply #67 on: January 13, 2006, 11:14:28 PM »
Man,

OUTSTANDING WORK!!!!!!!!

Where do you guys get the WWII artwork from?  I would love to get some pics of them and make a neat screen saver for work....

Any suggestions on where to get them ?????

REgards,

TG12
Logged

Offline slimey_J

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 50
Motivations
« Reply #68 on: January 14, 2006, 12:48:15 AM »
Logged

Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
Motivations
« Reply #69 on: January 14, 2006, 03:28:34 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by guttboy
Man,

OUTSTANDING WORK!!!!!!!!

Where do you guys get the WWII artwork from?  I would love to get some pics of them and make a neat screen saver for work....

Any suggestions on where to get them ?????

REgards,

TG12


Search around for: Robert Taylor Aviation Art

Any site that has his stuff has other artwork as well.
Logged

Offline guttboy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1408
Motivations
« Reply #70 on: January 14, 2006, 08:49:53 AM »
Thanks will do!
Logged

Offline KD303

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 201
Motivations
« Reply #71 on: January 16, 2006, 06:08:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Morpheus
The biggest hurdle which Martin Baker never over stepped was gaining the confidence in the brits to accept his design into full scale production.


You make it sound like he was some dashed foreigner old chap.;) You don't get an OBE, a CBE and a knighthood without a British pasport.

It was not based on the Mustang. It was, however, known in the British aviation press at the time as the "British Mustang" - a misnomer and a handy catch-phrase based purely on the fact that it bore a fleeting resemblance to the P51.
Infact it had a lot of features that the Mustang didn't have. You might as well say it was based on any other number of aircraft. I'm sure a search of sites on the net will give info about the MB5 for those interested.

Its contra rotating props did not give adverse performance.
Had the Air Ministry accepted it, Martin Baker would have built it.


The test pilots at Boscombe Down loved it. They flew it and I'm happy to take their word for it.
Also, they tested it after the Vampire and Meteor had been flown.
KD
« Last Edit: January 16, 2006, 06:19:06 PM by KD303 »
Logged

Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
Motivations
« Reply #72 on: January 17, 2006, 01:05:31 PM »
Logged

Offline Morpheus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10231
Motivations
« Reply #73 on: January 17, 2006, 01:48:03 PM »
Quote
It was not based on the Mustang. It was, however, known in the British aviation press at the time as the "British Mustang" - a misnomer and a handy catch-phrase based purely on the fact that it bore a fleeting resemblance to the P51.


To make a few things clear here for you, I did not say it was based on the mustang.

FYI, the single major influence in it not seeing action, or even production, was that fighters like the mustang,  were already in mass production and were going to be very hard to dethrown... While the Jet age, like I said, was already well on its way.
Logged
If you don't receive Jesus Christ, you don't receive the gift of righteousness.

Be A WARRIOR NOT A WORRIER!

Offline bagrat

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1936
AWSOME THREAD
« Reply #74 on: January 17, 2006, 05:53:58 PM »
"SHARK WITH FRIGGIN LAZER BEAMS" :rofl
Logged
Last post by bagrat - The last thing you'll see before your thread dies since 2005.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7   Go Up
« previous next »