Martin Baker MB5

R2496 was the second MB.3 prototype that eventually became known as the MB.5

Yes, it’s the second prototype Seafang F. Mk 32 (see the “Royal Navy” marking) VB895, admittedly a navalised Spiteful. Griffon 89 engine, contra-rotating propellers and upward folding wings.

And another Supermarine dog by some accounts. Interesting difference of opinion between two test pilots. Mike Lithgow (Vickers Super’s test pilot) said he could never understand why the Navy went for the Seafire 46 instead of the Seafang. Eric Brown on the other hand said that lots of testing was done on the Seafang and in his opinion it never would have made a suitable carrier aircraft. The Sea Fury (and soon afterwards jets) made both rather irrelevant in any case.

Yes, it’s the second prototype Seafang F. Mk 32 (see the “Royal Navy” marking) VB895, admittedly a navalised Spiteful. Griffon 89 engine, contra-rotating propellers and upward folding wings.

Interesting similarities between MB 5, Mustang, and the best of all of them,

[]

SUPERMARINE SPITEFULL

TELL ME DIFFERENT!!!!

Err, isn’t that a Seafang?

Ugly little begger innit. :dev2:

Best wishes
Steve P

Interesting similarities between MB 5, Mustang, and the best of all of them,

[]

SUPERMARINE SPITEFULL

TELL ME DIFFERENT!!!!

…until you look ‘under the skin’ so to speak, all very different beasts construction-wise. The M.B.5 used a welded steel tube fuselage, the Spiteful was of the monocoque variety and the Mustang was more ‘modular’ to suit mass production.

They may have looked alike but I’ll bet that the pilots would tell you they all had their own little differences when they were up in the air 😉

Tom

MB 5

Interesting similarities between MB 5, Mustang, and the best of all of them,

[]

TELL ME DIFFERENT!!!!

[QUOTE=Dakkg651]Brochure states MAUW clean 78kts, dirty 70kts.

Thank you very much. I have been searching for this information for over 45 years!

can I be cheeky and ask if there is any chance of getting a copy of that brochure?

I think the MB5 is ACE!

Seeing this I can understand slightly more why the replica looks the way it does, this pic is quite foreshortened. I wonder if they were working from this rather than the classic side on shot?

I met John Marlin and saw this “replica” back in the very early stages of construction at Chino. At that point in time Mr. Marlin admitted to me that finding info was a bit difficult and his main source of information was a set of blueprints for an R/C model of the MB-5 which were drawn by the late Dan Parsons. As an aquaintance of Dan and having seen his model of the MB on several occasions I had high hopes for the full size reproduction. I can assure you that Dan’s model looked much, much better! Somewhere along the way Mr. Marlin took a few “shortcuts”. Having read a number of comments by knowledgeable people concerning the construction methods used on the replica (can we even call it a replica?) I would not be surprised if it never sees air under its wings.

Does anybody know what the stalling speeds were for the MB 5? I have never seen them in print. Are they mentioned in the brochure, by any chance?

Brochure states MAUW clean 78kts, dirty 70kts.

The MB5 cannot be compared with the TSR2 because the engine and undercarriage worked as advertised on the 5.

XN923 – The MB.5 was better than the TSR.2 for it’s time .

On the other hand it was about to become totally outclassed.

Here is a nice angle shot of the MB-5. (top image) .

Seeing this I can understand slightly more why the replica looks the way it does, this pic is quite foreshortened. I wonder if they were working from this rather than the classic side on shot?

Does anybody know what the stalling speeds were for the MB 5? I have never seen them in print. Are they mentioned in the brochure, by any chance?

Barnstormer – It’s worth noting that war provides great impetus for advances in technology. Look at a Mustang for example and also imagine the amount of information
gained from Allied combat experience and the MB.5 is to some degree the product of this.

The MB.4 was abandoned at the design stage soon after the tragic death of Capt. Val Baker in the MB.3 on 12 September 1942.

MB-4?

Just checked my reference photos of the MB. I have photos of the MB-1;2;3; and 5. Was there a 4? Maybe the design was scrapped? I would like to know. Here is a nice angle shot of the MB-5. (top image) Being an enthusiast with a
“The older it is-The better..” preference, I have to admire that sleek MB-1 design with the Miles-“type” wheel skirts.. The design evolution from -1 to -5 is quite radical .

XN923 – The MB.5 was better than the TSR.2 for it’s time .

Interesting that nobody in the U.K has decided to rival it by building our own though!

No, but if we ever did it would have been one of the best replicas ever. As it was the short sighted government scrapped plans for it and allowed Johnny Foreigner to steal a lead in the replica building industry that we never… sorry, not sure what came over me there.

Can anyone else hear ‘Land of Hope and Glory’ playing in the background somewhere?

The Martin-Baker MB5 – the TSR2 of the 40s. Discuss.

Interesting that nobody in the U.K has decided to rival it by building our own though!