10 best WW2 aircraft that were cancelled

[mhaselden]

FWIW, Silver Cloud did a 1/48 Martin Baker MB5.  IIRC it was pretty basic and I've no idea how well the parts fitted.  

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by mhaselden

[72modeler]

@Giorgio N,

 

Want to see the ultimate home-built? Your comments regarding the MB5  lit up one of my dusty old memory banks, and I remembered a fellow who is building a flying replica (of sorts) out of a composite of other aircraft and manufactured parts. See the links and the photos. Such a handsome fighter that was too late, but from all accounts, very capable. I hope he gets it flying, and I hope there are lots of photos and videos! (Always reminded me of  a  Seafire FR47, P-51D, and F-51H composite.)

Mike

 

http://johnmarlinsmb5replica.mysite.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin-Baker_MB_5

https://oldmachinepress.com/2017/06/20/martin-baker-mb5-fighter/

https://aerialvisuals.ca/AirframeDossier.php?Serial=17218

[Abandoned Project]

On 16/01/2022 at 23:07, alt-92 said:

Just don't read the comment section 

Advice followed. Disaster averted. 

[John Thompson]

7 hours ago, dnl42 said:

Minicraft's 1/48 XF5F. The wings are a perfect fit; the nacelles were quite wonky. LSM makes a cockpit--thinning the sidewall parts enables them to conform to the plastic.

The fugly parent of the lovely F7F Tigercat.

It always looks to me like the fuselage is struggling, and not quite succeeding, to keep up with those two Wright Cyclones. Drat - why did I reply? Now I'll have to dig out that MPM 1/72 XF5F and fantasize about building it...

 

John

[dnl42]

2 hours ago, John Thompson said:

It always looks to me like the fuselage is struggling, and not quite succeeding, to keep up with those two Wright Cyclones.

Brilliant! 

I hope I can remember that! 

[FinnAndersen]

9 hours ago, John Thompson said:

It always looks to me like the fuselage is struggling, and not quite succeeding, to keep up with those two Wright Cyclones. Drat - why did I reply? Now I'll have to dig out that MPM 1/72 XF5F and fantasize about building it...

 

John

As the Beaufighter: "Two engines in close formation, immediately followed by an airplane"  😜

[Giorgio N]

18 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I can offer the "What If" enthusiast something from the latest Aviation Historian.  B-29s for Bomber Command with Centaurus engines, unturbocharged, unpressurised, manned turrets without central fire control.   Yes they were, if fairly briefly, serious.  Or, in the next issue, B-32s?

 

That sounds interesting and puzzling at the same time... I can understand replacing engines (as long as the Centaurus were supercharged...), but removing the pressurisation and the remote fire control system would have meant removing some of the assets that made a B-29 a machine more modern than others. Guess that an unpressurised B-29 would still have an advantage in range over a Lancaster so would have retained a certain usefulness

[Giorgio N]

16 hours ago, 72modeler said:

@Giorgio N,

 

Want to see the ultimate home-built? Your comments regarding the MB5  lit up one of my dusty old memory banks, and I remembered a fellow who is building a flying replica (of sorts) out of a composite of other aircraft and manufactured parts. See the links and the photos. Such a handsome fighter that was too late, but from all accounts, very capable. I hope he gets it flying, and I hope there are lots of photos and videos! (Always reminded me of  a  Seafire FR47, P-51D, and F-51H composite.)

Mike

 

http://johnmarlinsmb5replica.mysite.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin-Baker_MB_5

https://oldmachinepress.com/2017/06/20/martin-baker-mb5-fighter/

https://aerialvisuals.ca/AirframeDossier.php?Serial=17218

 

Thanks for posting these ! I was aware of this project but hadn't followed it in a while.

I remember someone here doing something similar, that is building a 1/72 MB5 from a Matchbox P-51D kit. The reason for using this kit was that it only resembled a Mustang anyway so was perfect to build something that was not a Mustang 🤣

Edited January 19, 2022 by Giorgio N

[Ed Russell]

7 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

That sounds interesting and puzzling at the same time... I can understand replacing engines (as long as the Centaurus were supercharged...), but removing the pressurisation and the remote fire control system

The context is that it is late 1942 and Bomber Command are worried that Vickers is still building Wellingtons. Removing the fire control and having less turrets (albeit manned) saves weight. Pressurisation is not strictly necessary at the bombing height envisaged and fitting (unsupercharged) Centaurus engines means no problems with untried superchargers. Thus a more capable aircraft than the Lancaste, suited to the task, and available in 1943. That was the plan.............

[Graham Boak]

Just to add that at this time the B-29 was suffering severely from engine fires and other problems, so it was not a case of accepting a proven design but considering ways of using what was available and known to work.  Linked to this was the (correct) belief that the USAF was not going to have any spare B-29s for Lend Lease before 1945 at best, and the (false, in my opinion) view that building it in the UK and re-engining it would be quicker.  I think we'd consider this timescale dramatically optimistic.  To be fair, it wasn't known then how long it would take the Centaurus to be redesigned to aft exhausts (thanks to Kurt Tank there!).