Martin Baker MB5 414sqd May 1945

[Fensman]

Here are my pictures of my recently completed Martin Baker MB5 completed in the colours of Squadron Leader JB Prendergast of 414 Squadron Royal Canadian air force Germany May 1945.

I've always loved the Martin Baker MB 5 and bluntly the advent of jet aircraft at the end of World War II prevented going into service I always wondered what it would look like in Squadron colours and in Osprey aircraft of the aces number 81 Griffon Spitfire Aces there is a colour drawing number 26 on which I based the model.

414 Squadron had been assigned to the second tactical air force to perform armed reconnaissance and the red nose I thought looked really good with contra rotating propellers. I've used xtradecal roundels & ccodes.

I also did a live pin wash and used clear satin varnish varnish for the first time which looked really good at this scale.

Apologies for the rudimentary stand, I prefer aircraft with the undercarriage up and the somewhat rushed photographs.

This was the new AZ model MB5 went together well with the exception of the canopy which was badly fitting and the propeller blades which needed considerably cleaning up at their bases.

I hope you enjoy

[djos]

Nice MB5.

Always looks to me as muscle car between British airplanes.

As just on my workbench, i am happy that this AZ model is not a big troublemaker

Again i like how you finished it.

Best regards Djordje

[Gorby]

I love it - excellent job.

I've always liked Martin Baker designs.

[Gerrardandrews]

Very honest model 😊nice to see it with u/c up😇

[rs2man]

7 hours ago, djos said:

Nice MB5.

Always looks to me as muscle car between British airplanes.

As just on my workbench, i am happy that this AZ model is not a big troublemaker

Again i like how you finished it.

Best regards Djordje

The only real problem is , as stated by the original poster, the canopy which simply doesn't fit . If you cut it in half and display it open , however, both halves fit and look as if they would fit together . 

[Head in the clouds.]

Nice MB 5, it does make you wonder how it would have performed if given the chance, the Sea Fury held its own at the beginning of the jet era so I feel this would have done so too.

[Fensman]

I agree given the Sea fury even got kills on Mig15s in Korea putting the MB 5 into production is not a crazy idea.  One thing I notice building the kit is the wing cross section is very deep. Having just built a brace of P-51s i think the wing cross section would have been a disadvantage.

 

The mustangs performance a combination of a great engine ( the MB5 is in the same league here) and its wing. The laminar flow wing gave the mustang great speed but by having very little drag also great range. I doubt the MB5 with its thick wings would be comparable  In fact sticking with thick cross section wings impeded the performance of many of the first generation and second generation jets. The Javelin and Scimitar had plenty of power but  due to thick cross section wings were at best transonic when the F100 was fully supersonic. Only with the Lightning did we get power mated to a thin wing and subsequent mach 2 performance.

 

I did some research on air to ground weapons on the MB5 its very broad undercarriage  left little outboard room  for under wing armament. I considered mounting six 60lb rockets 3 under each wing or a tempest style drop tank all of which looked plausible. The only picture I could find was a technical drawing which indicated a bomb being mounted centrally in front of the ventral radiator. I am not sure how that would have effected the radiators performance. Here the deep wing would have provided great strength and lifting power in design that was designed for easy maintenance and repair all good attributes for ground attack role

[stevehnz]

I like the look of that a lot. Tamiya RAF colours? & how did your make your canopy look so good when it is so bad? I ask because I've got one in stock too.

Steve.

[Graham Boak]

Beware of the assumption that the wing thickness of a model bears a close relationship to that of the original.  For one example of my experience, the Revell Ar240 has a nice thin wing whereas the original was quite the reverse.  Or the Airfix 1/72 Spitfire Mk.Vc.  However, the main performance limitation of a thicker wing - and remember that the Mustang wing was thicker than that of a Spitfire, if thinner than that of an Me262 - would mainly show in the maximum Mach Number achievable in a dive.  The Spitfire stands supreme among WW2 types.

 

The main argument against production of the MB5 is that it had little if any advantage over a Tempest, which had already been in service for several months before the MB5 first flew.  Martin Baker had no factory, no full design office, and no flight test organisation.  The aircraft was never fully tested, so its true capabilities are unknown.  Even assuming it was every bit as good as suggested, and that some other type (which would you recommend?) had been cancelled in its favour, it would not have been available in significant numbers before 1946 at the earliest - if then.

 

I'm glad to hear that the AZ kit has no major flaws - I'll address that of the canopy when I get to play with it - as mine is intended to be in What-If guise too.  I already have a Skybirds 72 kit for a historically-correct scheme.  I hope that mine ends up looking as good as that of the OP.

[Fensman]

Hi, Yes the new tamiya RAF colours were used. Although in my opinion ocean grey from other manufactures is close The Tamiya Green is the only one that captures that difficult to match green. However I find the tamiiya dark earth to be to pale. A great combination is Tamiya RAF Green and Xtracolor Dark Earth which looks really great  although not relevant to this build.

 

The comments about Martin baker and resources to manufacture  are true and the tempest / Fury were great fighters. 

 

The canopy problem is tricky and comes about because the fuselage under the forward canopy is wrong. Existing pictures show the forward fuselage is built up standing proud under the forward canopy this built up area is missing from the kit. The aft (sliding part of the canopy is a little too deep. 

 

My solution was to file the aft section of the canopy and the forward section of the cockpit under the forward canopy to get a better fit. I could not make it perfect and still had gaps between the fuselage and canopy which i filled with Humbrol clear. It works sort of. I am really pleased you think I made a good job of it. The canopy as i have fitted it looks right. There is nothing I could do about the fuselage  around the forward canopy. If you look at avaiible pictures and my model you will see what I mean.