AZ 1/72 Martin Baker MB5

[Beard]

More of an announcement than a rumour, this was posted by Jan Polc in the WW2 sub-forum.

'Jan Polc Today, 09:07 AM

Hi all,

there was a lot of tips....... We decided not to keep the secret and tell you what aircraft we prepare for Telford show.

Yes, it is injection moulded Martin-Baker MB. 5 in 1/72nd scale.

We promised some action. OK, here it is - We will prepare extra decal sheet with what-if camouflages (better say liveries) for "Boscombe Down aircraft", including colourful blue-white-red scheme and all black Qinetic plus some more. This decal sheet will be available only at Telford show, cost approx 4.50GBP.

You have chance to preorder your MB.5 kit on e-mail [email protected] from now. All preordered kits will include this extra decal free of charge. This chance is available also for modelers who will not attend Telford show, we will send preordered MB.5 worldwide. Do not miss your chance to get free extra decals.

Our stand at Telford you will find at Guidelines Publishing with some people from our company, me and our chief of distribution Petr Safra.'

[Truro Model Builder]

Oh you beauty!

[lasermonkey]

Gonna have to get one of these for sure!

[Procopius]

Very excited about this.

[Homebee]

Now also in the AZmodel FB page: https://www.facebook.com/azmodelkits/photos/a.479270545430893.116320.478579078833373/1245131795511427/?type=3&theater

Dear friends, we prepare injection moulded kit of Martin Baker MB-5 in 1/72nd scale for this year Telford show.

We plan the action for you - we will prepare special decal sheet with what-if schemes of Boscombe Down aircraft, including colourful red-white-blue one, all black qinetic and more. This sheet will be available only at Telford show, priced approx 4,50 GBP.

You can preorder your kit and get the sheet for free.

Write to [email protected], subject MB-5 preorder. This is not limited for those who will attend the show, We will send it worldwide. Just mention - bring it to Telford for me or include postal address.

V.P.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Homebee

[71chally]

fantastic news!

In 48th it would be some beast!

[Learstang]

Now that's a surprise! I might just have to pick one up (I actually have an old Skybirds '86 kit, still unbuilt).

Regards,

Jason

[chrisov]

Hope this does well and quickly followed by 1/48 please.

Cheers

Chris

[Madoc]

Oh my, this does sound quite appealing!

[Navy Bird]

Very interesting subject. I dare say that I may go for one or two of these.

However, in the Facebook post it is mentioned that one of the schemes will be "all black qinetic".

All well and good for a what if, assuming you're a time traveller, but it's QinetiQ. I can always remember this spelling as I worked for the defense optics manufacturer Qioptiq before I retired. The companies were not related, but we did do some work for them.

Cheers,

Bill

[Rob G]

I guess that makes my Falcon vacs in both major scales somewhat redundant. I may buy one of AZ kits to use the cockpit details as references.

[modelman182]

Just as I should have expected - the minute I print out the plans with a plan to scratchbuild a [insert aircraft name/designation here] along comes a new kit of that very subject. Ho hum....

Still, I guess I shall have to order one of these.

Not sure if I'll make it to Telford this year (haven't made it there since 2011, so well overdue a visit) but the mail order offer is too good to refuse. "You gotta do wot you gotta do", as they say! hee hee

Kev

[Truro Model Builder]

Very interesting subject. I dare say that I may go for one or two of these.

However, in the Facebook post it is mentioned that one of the schemes will be "all black qinetic".

All well and good for a what if, assuming you're a time traveller, but it's QinetiQ. I can always remember this spelling as I worked for the defense optics manufacturer Qioptiq before I retired. The companies were not related, but we did do some work for them.

Cheers,

Bill

The way they spell it always makes me want to call them Kwintikoo.

[Rob G]

The way they spell it always makes me want to call them Kwintikoo.

My ex-RAF ground radar-trained uncle reckons it's pronounced 'twats'. But he's old and very grumpy. Regardless of how it's pronounced, I think that it LOOKS silly.

[Flankerman]

'Qin stupid name if you ask me.

If it's pronounced KINETIC, then spell it Kinetic.

Qen

[Navy Bird]

I didn't care for the spelling of Qioptiq either. From a marketing perspective, it was a problem on several fronts. Customers couldn't pronounce it, couldn't spell it, and since it began with "Qi" they thought it was a Chinese or Aztec company (it was a French). I'm sure QinetiQ have the same problems.

Back to the MB.5 - the aircraft certainly bears some resemblance to the P-51, but why? Was North American Aviation involved at all? I would think that unlikely. Perhaps, like some of the more unusual US late-war prototypes, the MB.5 benefited from reusing some P-51 components? Even more unlikely. Or is it just a coincidence?

I read somewhere that someone (how's that for a serious source?) was building an MB.5 replica using P-51 parts. I don't think it was full-scale, though. Anyone know about that?

Cheers,

Bill

[Procopius]

Back to the MB.5 - the aircraft certainly bears some resemblance to the P-51, but why? Was North American Aviation involved at all? I would think that unlikely. Perhaps, like some of the more unusual US late-war prototypes, the MB.5 benefited from reusing some P-51 components? Even more unlikely. Or is it just a coincidence?

I don't believe NAA was involved at all, no. The MB5 is quite large, much larger than a Mustang (37 feet long vs 32 feet), as big as a Thunderbolt (36 feet long), even. It also had shorter wings than a P-51. I think it took advantage of the research that produced the Mustang and adopted some of the aerodynamic elements used on that aircraft, but it's entirely its own machine.

[Flankerman]

Search for 'MB.5 replica usa'.......

One result is this :- http://images.forwallpaper.com/files/thumbs/preview/29/296926__martin-baker-mb-5-replica-closeup_p.jpg

.... and this :- http://thumbs4.ebaystatic.com/d/l800/pict/181244181014_1.jpg

Also found this.....

John Marlin of Reno, Nev., began working on a replica of the MB 5 in about 2001 and was putting it through taxi tests in July 2006. The aircraft used a P-51 Mustang wing and had other design changes to improve handling. The replica apparently never flew, and the project appears to have been in abeyance for the past several years.

It is, apparently, not very accurate.

Ken

PS For the real MB-5 see:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin-Baker_MB_5

Edited August 24, 2016 by Flankerman

[71chally]

Back to the MB.5 - the aircraft certainly bears some resemblance to the P-51, but why? Was North American Aviation involved at all? I would think that unlikely. Perhaps, like some of the more unusual US late-war prototypes, the MB.5 benefited from reusing some P-51 components? Even more unlikely. Or is it just a coincidence?

Purely coincidental, it superficially kind of looks like a Mustang, but really it is only the underfuselage radiator position that is the same.

Other manufacturers were coming up with the same thing so I would guess that aerodynamic research was going that way.

One huge difference is the construction, the M.B.5s fuselage was formed from tubular framing with shaped alloy panels fixed to it, think Hawker more than NAA.

Many of the panels were quick release and enabled really good access, the idea being to have a very high performance fighter, with great ease of access for maintenance if theatre.

Find pictures of it stripped down and it would make a great detail kit!

It was a superb aircraft in testing, possibly the pinnacle of UK single engined fighter design of the war period in terms of performance and practicality, but wasn't going to bring much more than the Tempest was delivering, and new designs that the established fighter manufacturers had in the drawing office

What if schemes are ok, but when they are schemes that are from 30 to 60 years in the future, it is pushing things a bit!

P.S, this is probably the online source of photos of it, even shows the early M.B.3 tail, http://forum.worldofwarplanes.eu/index.php?/topic/8916-martin-baker-mb5-r2496-picture-heavy/

Edited August 24, 2016 by 71chally

[Madoc]

Yeah, it's the overall layout that harkens to a P-51 origin. But that too is deceptive. The North American P-51 Mustang's layout itself was hardly unique. It's inline engine in the nose with one small air intake immediately below the propeller and then the larger intake scoop beneath the wings and behind the cockpit is actually pretty common. I think it's the bubble canopy in addition to all of that which really makes it seem the most similar.

Fact is, that's just the most optimal layout if you're powering your plane with a big inline engine that needs plenty of air flowing past its radiator and you also want excellent all around visibility for your pilot as well. You could put the radiator inlets in the wing's leading edges but that never seemed to catch on much despite several designs mucking about with it in various configurations. And bubble canopies became the thing during WWII as it helped keep the pilots alive and thus enabled them to complete their missions.

So, it's much more a case of similar functional requirements using similar technologies to arrive at an optimal solution that results in a similar appearing machine.

[Max Headroom]

I didn't care for the spelling of Qioptiq either. From a marketing perspective, it was a problem on several fronts. Customers couldn't pronounce it, couldn't spell it, and since it began with "Qi" they thought it was a Chinese or Aztec company (it was a French). I'm sure QinetiQ have the same problems.

Back to the MB.5 - the aircraft certainly bears some resemblance to the P-51, but why? Was North American Aviation involved at all? I would think that unlikely. Perhaps, like some of the more unusual US late-war prototypes, the MB.5 benefited from reusing some P-51 components? Even more unlikely. Or is it just a coincidence?

I read somewhere that someone (how's that for a serious source?) was building an MB.5 replica using P-51 parts. I don't think it was full-scale, though. Anyone know about that?

Cheers,

Bill

Here you go!

http://johnmarlinsmb5replica.mysite.com

As for quintkq I believe that the Gloucestershire Aircraft Company changed heir name to Glosters for the benefit of those from Abroad who might have pronunciation problems.

Doesn't seem to have harmed oversees Worcestershire Sauce sales though!

As for the MB-5 whiffery, wotabout a T.2?!

Trevor

[viscount806x]

Thanks for the heads up Beard. Got mine on pre order now.

[Graham Boak]

Madoc: I agree with you in principle about technologies driving shape (if you include requirements), but you are severely understating the individuality and importance of the Mustang layout. It was not that the intake scoop was below the cockpit: it was that the intake was carefully expansion ducted (reducing drag) and the radiator stored inside the fuselage (reducing drag) and then the heated air compression ducted out to give a small net thrust. That was new, and adopted for later aircraft such as the MB5 and the CA15. There was an attempt to adapt the Spitfire to this approach, but it stayed on the drawing board. The basic ducting principle was not itself original - the Spitfire and Bf109 underwing radiators make use of it - but it was the Mustang that went beyond this and integrated the entire package into a successful design.

Radiators in the wing leading edges take up space that could be used for fuel, require exhausts that can upset the airflow over the inner wing, and were considered vulnerable to enemy fire. That's why they were not adopted for the main cooling of inline engines. They were adopted for smaller oil coolers, as on several aircraft types, e.g. Corsair, Tempest II, VI, Fury.

71chally. We simply don't know whether or not the MB5 could have been any kind of pinnacle of performance, because it was never tested to find out. The structural method however does sound dated and heavy, however good for maintenance. Smoothness for performance, and large panels for maintenance, have been a design trade-off into modern times.

[JosephLalor]

Graham's referring to the Meredith Effect. I recall reading that the residual thrust from the Mustang's radiator outlet was sufficient to offset 90% of its cooling drag

[Madoc]

Joseph & all,

Agreed. Also, the guys at North American were NOT the only ones seeking to utilize that effect. They just got their solution into widespread production ahead of most everyone else. Thus that layout and its appearance became synonymous with the P-51 Mustang and not some other company's products. Ironically enough, that belly mounted intake scoop with its ventral exhaust owed much of its shape to the original research done by Curtiss Aircraft.

Curtiss did that work for an Air Corps contract. North American Aviation then requested the data of that aerodynamic research as it was publicly funded and thus not a Curtiss proprietary thing. The North American engineers then applied it to their new hot design - the Mustang - and the rest, as they say, was history...

Graham's referring to the Meredith Effect. I recall reading that the residual thrust from the Mustang's radiator outlet was sufficient to offset 90% of its cooling drag