May 23, 2013 at 11:59 pm
Not heard anything about this for years. Anyone know how he’s doing? Anywhere near flight?
By: CeBro - 25th May 2013 at 16:00
IIRC it uses some modified Mustang wings.
Cees
By: sopwith.7f1 - 25th May 2013 at 11:06
Wasn’t the shortening of the fuselage etc down to the builder wanting to use a number of Mustang parts “wings etc” in the build ?.
Bob T.
By: cometguymk1 - 25th May 2013 at 10:59
This could get complicated.
Reducing the tailplane moment arm reduces the torque available to the pilot from a given tailplane configuration but it also reduces the stabilising effect of the tailplane. To further complicate things it would also slightly reduce the pitch inertia. Therefore, it either increases pitch stability or reduces it depending on what you are considering. As always, design is a trade-off between various conflicting factors. Regarding the supposed problem, presumably reducing elevator movement would be the obvious thing to do. That more easily involves a change in the pilot rather than the aircraft.
Hope that helps.
Very much 🙂 Thanks
By: Sideslip - 25th May 2013 at 10:25
And how’s your new built WWII fighter coming? 🙂
Ooh, touchy!
By: HP111 - 25th May 2013 at 10:08
No, as hes reduced the moment arm.
This could get complicated.
Reducing the tailplane moment arm reduces the torque available to the pilot from a given tailplane configuration but it also reduces the stabilising effect of the tailplane. To further complicate things it would also slightly reduce the pitch inertia. Therefore, it either increases pitch stability or reduces it depending on what you are considering. As always, design is a trade-off between various conflicting factors. Regarding the supposed problem, presumably reducing elevator movement would be the obvious thing to do. That more easily involves a change in the pilot rather than the aircraft.
Hope that helps.
By: Rocketeer - 25th May 2013 at 00:06
I have seen it in the ‘flesh’ at Stead – he has put in substantial money and effort. I congratulate him for that.
It is too easy for our army of armchair critics to sit back, sup their GnT and pronounce their disdain! When I built a kit car, my older brother guffawed at my choice and said ‘Why did you build that, I would’ve built a cobra’ – I said ‘well where’s yours?!’
Regarding pitch sensitivity, it is like alot of life – shortening the moment arm is not the whole story. The vert tail of the original MB5 was huge, presumably to improve spin recovery – again, not the whole story!! The designer has lots of tricks to create issues and attempt to get out of them!
By: J Boyle - 24th May 2013 at 23:58
For some reason, whilst looking at the photo of the replica Mr Blobby came to mind.
And how’s your new built WWII fighter coming? 🙂
By: Oxcart - 24th May 2013 at 23:32
There’s a far easier way than that to make it less sensitive in pitch…
You need to speak to Mr Marlin then!
I have no plans to even make a model of a World War 2 fighter!
By: Stepwilk - 24th May 2013 at 21:18
he built it a little shorter to make it less sensitive in pitch
There’s a far easier way than that to make it less sensitive in pitch…
By: Sideslip - 24th May 2013 at 18:53
For some reason, whilst looking at the photo of the replica Mr Blobby came to mind.
By: cometguymk1 - 24th May 2013 at 18:41
No, as hes reduced the moment arm.
By: The Blue Max - 24th May 2013 at 18:15
Surely that would make it more not less sensitive in pitch!!!
By: Oxcart - 24th May 2013 at 13:19
I seem to remember reading somewhere that he built it a little shorter to make it less sensitive in pitch
By: CIRCUS 6 - 24th May 2013 at 12:55
I’ve gotta agree with Fouga. And Moggy. I’ve seen it in the metal and John Marlin is clearly a talented chap. Short on eyesight though…
By: Fouga23 - 24th May 2013 at 11:24
Not a fan then?! 😉
Since it hardly looks like an MB5, no, not really
By: TonyT - 24th May 2013 at 11:12
Yup working on early British aircraft is like Gynecology, peering at objects through a small hole at distance, the only good news is on average it smells better…. :eagerness:
By: Mike J - 24th May 2013 at 10:56
………..designed with easy maintenance in mind. Not always a feature of British warplanes.
That statement probably takes the prize for understatement of the year, and applies equally to other British aeroplane, not just warplanes! 🙂
By: ozplane - 24th May 2013 at 10:38
Absolutely. A fitting nod in the direction of what might have been the best British piston-engined fighter of it’s time. Great performance and designed with easy maintenance in mind. Not always a feature of British warplanes.
By: Moggy C - 24th May 2013 at 09:37
Not a fan then?! 😉
I can’t love the aircraft much from the few images I have seen – it still appears to be more of a ‘tribute’ than a ‘replica’. But I put it in the same category as the French scaled-down Mosquito – Admirable lunacy, and to be encouraged in every way. 🙂
Moggy