Dave Wilko Posted October 10, 2021 Share Posted October 10, 2021 Ladies and Gentlemen, One is on the hunt for good drawings or GA views at the least of the above aeroplane. A thorough internet search has seemingly proved quite fruitless for the Mk.II. One believes that although based on the Mercury engined Mk.II,the Martinet was slightly longer in the fuselage to compensate for the weight of the towing gear and retain the C of G position,but retained the wing and tailplane span of the Mk.II/III Master. Any help in the quest for drawings of the MK.II or even the Martinet would be most gratefully received. Thankyou. David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcastle Posted October 10, 2021 Share Posted October 10, 2021 Hi Dave The best I can offer is the two pics and small diagrams on page 176 and 177 of David Mondey's Concise Guide to British Aircraft of WW2, ISBN 600 34951 9-Aerospace Publishing Ltd 1982. It appears Mk 1 and 2 had the RR Kestrel XXX and Bristol Mercury XX engines respectively (this had a similar nose shape to the Hurricane), while the Mk 3 had the Pratt and Whitley Wasp Junior engine and had a similar look to the Martinet as you mention. The Master was, however primarily a trainer, a two-seater, although a few were converted to fighters, but never used in that role. I will happily scan and send the two pages if that may assist you - email me on traumadoc2 AT gmail.com 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillF67 Posted October 10, 2021 Share Posted October 10, 2021 I have kits for a Martinet (1/72) and a Master Mk1 (1/48). I can scan the instructions for these if they would help? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmatthewbacon Posted October 10, 2021 Share Posted October 10, 2021 Thanks to the handy Harleyford "Book of Miles Aircraft" on my shelf: Master 2 Download full size here: https://cmatthewbacon.smugmug.com/Family/General-and-family/i-bDX4c4b/A Martinet Full size: https://cmatthewbacon.smugmug.com/Family/General-and-family/i-HVf5NgL/A HTH, best, M. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Wilko Posted October 10, 2021 Author Share Posted October 10, 2021 Thank you gentlemen for your kind replies and assistance. Matthew,the above drawings are very greatly appreciated,though one fears that the drawing of the "Master" is actually of the Master III fitted with the "Twin-Wasp" engine rather than the Master II fitted with the "Mercury XX" engine. However,the basic airframe of the III,except for the engine,is identical to the II. The Twin-Wasp appears to be again fitted further away from the windscreen( a la Martinet),possibly it was a lighter engine(certainly smaller diameter) than the Mercury,that engine's cooling gill flaps are very close to the wing leading edge compared to that of the Master III in the few photographs seen on line of the Master II. One is aware that the Master II's quoted OAL is 29'6" compared to the Martinet's 30'11"(to compensate the CofG),but as far as one is aware, there is no change of OAL for the Master III. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneEighthBit Posted October 10, 2021 Share Posted October 10, 2021 (edited) Aviation News - 21 Jan - 3 Feb 1977 has a centre spread with scale drawings and profiles of all three marks plus the Marinet. It's what I used for my Novo MkIII to GT MkII conversion. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yORuYktXVlgFPlOiN1ERcePae7ZwU39m/view?usp=sharing Edited October 10, 2021 by OneEighthBit 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Puff Posted October 10, 2021 Share Posted October 10, 2021 Be very careful when using any Aviation News drawing. They have been copied so many times, by so many different processes, that distortion is inevitable. A while back I laid a metal straight-edge along the keel line of my copy of the Av News Sunderland drawings - the keel was about as straight as a road up the side of a mountain! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneEighthBit Posted October 10, 2021 Share Posted October 10, 2021 1 hour ago, Admiral Puff said: Be very careful when using any Aviation News drawing. They have been copied so many times, by so many different processes, that distortion is inevitable. A while back I laid a metal straight-edge along the keel line of my copy of the Av News Sunderland drawings - the keel was about as straight as a road up the side of a mountain! Well I scanned my from an original edition if that helps any. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Puff Posted October 10, 2021 Share Posted October 10, 2021 So did I ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Wilko Posted October 11, 2021 Author Share Posted October 11, 2021 Gentlemen, sincere thanks for all your help in this matter. One believes that one has managed to glean all the information one requires from what you all have provided. David. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted October 12, 2021 Share Posted October 12, 2021 Can't one just say "I"? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dambuster Posted March 24, 2023 Share Posted March 24, 2023 Apologies for the thread resurrection…… I am also looking for an upper surface plan of the Master Mk II. The Aviation News drawings only show upper surface plans for the Mk I and Mk III. From the drawings it would appear that the fuselage width was increased between the cockpit windscreen and the engine cowling for the Mark III, but this is fitted with a smaller diameter engine. The Martinet is however fitted with the Bristol engine, as per the Mk II. Referring to the plan of the Martinet, there is a steady increase in this area, which gives a general indication of how it may have been done on the Master II, BUT the engine on the Martinet is mounted approx 1ft further forwards giving a greater distance for the width increase to be accommodated. The only plan I have found of the Mk II is in my father’s Aircraft of the Fighting Powers Vol 2. This shows the complete fuselage having a width increase to accommodate the Bristol engine, which I suspect was definitely not the case. Did anyone come up with a definitive plan view of the Master MkII showing exactly how the engine cowling width was tapered onto the fuselage? Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted March 24, 2023 Share Posted March 24, 2023 I think that you have the answer yourself. Take the Master fuselage and the engine cowling from the Martinet, but position the engine approx. 1ft nearer. Then draw in the required lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWM Posted March 27, 2023 Share Posted March 27, 2023 (edited) Just have a look at those photos http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/5052L.jpg https://alchetron.com/cdn/miles-master-ba53199d-e7df-45ea-9d4e-6689c52ad1a-resize-750.jpg https://fullfatthings-keyaero.b-cdn.net/sites/keyaero/files/imported/2019-12-12/img_58-1.jpg Master II has the same engine like Martinet, bu as you said it is not installed on the same distance from leading edge of wing. Of course the Master Mk III with less massive engine has much longer this distance then Master Mk II. I think that Master Mk III and Mk II has no change in their common part of fuselage, but I think that in case of Martinet the small part of fuselage going forward from the place where for Master II cowling ends is different then that for Master Mk III . So you are right, when you conclude that there is no width difference between Mk II and Mk III in fuselage from end of cowling of Mk II to windscreen ( In case of Mk III the engine is as slim as fuselage whereas for Mk II the cowling and fuselage looks a bit like a hat on a mushroom.... Simply cowling is wider then the fuselage. Regards J-W P.S. This photo shows it even better https://media.abpic.co.uk/pictures/full_size_0425/1642809-large.jpg Edited March 27, 2023 by JWM 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRK4m Posted March 27, 2023 Share Posted March 27, 2023 All of this is true except for one statement. Well, the Bristol Mercury XX used in the Master Mk.II and Martinet aircraft weighed (with an accuracy of 1%) the same as the PW R-1535 Twin Wasp Junior - a tad less than 1,100 lbs/500 kg. The only advantage of the US engine was the 35% smaller frontal area (P&W had a 112cm diameter, and the Mercury - 131cm). Therefore, the issue of mounting the 14-cylinder R-1535 on the longer arm from the center of gravity remains an enigma. At least for me Cheers Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now