Martin-Baker MB-5

[spicmart]

How good was the Martin-Baker MB-5? I often read that she had been a true gain for the RAF fighter inventory, possibly the best of late-war fighters,
the best since sliced bread etc.
But she was larger and a lot heavier than the late-war Spitfire marks. How could she have performed better than those with worse powerloading and wingloading?
A case of hyperbole?

 

[Pasoleati]

Based on the stuff I have read, it was very good. One reason being (handling wise) it had a contra-prop. But the best feature of its design was its airframe designed for very easy maintenance. It had large removable parts of fuselage skinning, cockpit was ergonomic etc. Its systems were simple, no hydraulics. Flaps and undercarriage were pneumatically operated.

By the way, speed is theoretically improved by high wing-loading while all other aspects of performance suffer. All other things being equal.

 

[Flying Sorcerer]

Any idea what it might have been called had it made it into service?

 

[Foo Fighter]

“In my opinion this is an outstanding aircraft, particularly when regarded in the light of the fact that it made its maiden flight as early as 23rd May 1944”
– Test pilot Capt. Eric Brown, 1948

I think this assessment would do for me.

https://apostlesofmercy.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F119231273625

View: https://apostlesofmercy.tumblr.com/post/119231273625/the-martin-baker-mb-5-was-to-have-been-the-prop

 

[spicmart]

I forgot to mention that the late mark Spitfires had the same propulsion as the MB-5 in the Griffon engine. These Spits reached about 740 km/h. As fast as the MB-5.
So I don't see anywhere any advantage in flight performance. How comfortable a plane it is to fly has nothing to do with it.
By the time of its maiden flight the Spitfire Mk 21 had already been flown, October 1943.
So nothing special there was about an "early" flight of the MB even though this Spit had bad handling.
The Spiteful, also powered by a Griffon, was much lighter as well.

 

[Foo Fighter]

The biggest problem for the MB series, IMHO - was the inability of the founder to accept any compromise, perfection or nothing. Had earlier marks of the aircraft got a look in there would more likely been place for the MB-5. Maintenance would have been easier and repairs faster but where the Spitfire was in service and updated while the MB series were improved in isolation. The switch to turbine power simple put the last nail in the coffin. Sadly. Another might have been. The death of a good friend may have had a hand in obsession. As a side note, my elderly neighbour who is 90 soon, her father was chief accountant at the Martin Baker company.

 

[red admiral]

“In my opinion this is an outstanding aircraft, particularly when regarded in the light of the fact that it made its maiden flight as early as 23rd May 1944”
– Test pilot Capt. Eric Brown, 1948

The aircraft Brown was flying wasn't the same as the 1944 one. It had a vertical tail that was 2-3 times larger. The 1944 test pilot reports call it an "absolute pig". When you combine this with offering no performance advantage over existing types and the future pointing towards jets...

 

[kitnut617]

I found it interesting that MB's philosophy at the beginning was to use the slab sides of their designs with minimal fin area for yaw control, but in the end, ended up with the biggest fin/rudder put on a single seat fighter even though they continued with the slab side fuselage.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I think a lot of the slab side went with the tubular construction oriented towards ease of maintenance.

 

[Hood]

Even if you discount the Meteor and Vampire, you have the late-mark Griffon Spitfires, Spiteful, Tempest (V & VI), Fury and Hornet. How many more piston-engined fighters would the RAF realistically need? (Plus the Folland Fo.117 was almost developed just in case they ran short... and that was meant to be a hot fighter on paper too.)

The Fury and Hornet were equally well lauded and Tempests don't seem to have been hated by their pilots and they tangled with Me 262s.
Messers Baker, Camm and Smith had had 5 years of wartime conditions and operational experience and previous models/prototypes to get it right - there is no excuse for any of these aircraft to have ended up as flying bricks.

 

[kitnut617]

I think a lot of the slab side went with the tubular construction oriented towards ease of maintenance.

Yes there was that, but I was referring to the first design which had high slab fuselage sides with just a rudder attached to the end on the fuselage, no fin at all. This was added as things went along, started really small until the MB5 where it had the biggest fin/rudder of all the British fighters

 

[Foo Fighter]

This thread is for the MB-5, you are talking about earlier versions of the aircraft so not relevant here.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The MB 5 was one of a number of British and American "super" fighters that were in advanced stages of development by 1944 (the P-72 would be a US example). For the planners of both nations, it was obvious by that point that the war was largely won and that jet aircraft were the future of military aviation. This made these aircraft unnecessary on two counts.

The first was that existing aircraft in production were sufficient to win the war. The second, was that jets were where the R&D money should go, if anywhere. For Britain, the cost of the war was such that there were serious questions about whether they should keep spending on military development at high rates or begin to cut back. It's pretty clear that the second choice was made well before the war ended.

 

[Archibald]

Even if you discount the Meteor and Vampire, you have the late-mark Griffon Spitfires, Spiteful, Tempest (V & VI), Fury and Hornet. How many more piston-engined fighters would the RAF realistically need? (Plus the Folland Fo.117 was almost developed just in case they ran short... and that was meant to be a hot fighter on paper too.)

The Fury and Hornet were equally well lauded and Tempests don't seem to have been hated by their pilots and they tangled with Me 262s.
Messers Baker, Camm and Smith had had 5 years of wartime conditions and operational experience and previous models/prototypes to get it right - there is no excuse for any of these aircraft to have ended up as flying bricks.

Had the Typhoon failed like the Tornado, to the point of no Tempest and no return...
Then the MB-3 may have had a chance, and maybe the MB-5 could have followed.

 

[robunos]

How comfortable a plane is to fly has nothing to do with it.

How comfortable a plane is to fly has everything to do with it. If, as the pilot, you're having to fight with the controls, to get the aeroplane to do what you want it to, or can't get the seat and rudder pedals in the correct position for your leg length, or can't sit upright because your head hits the canopy, you won't be able to concentrate on the task in hand; shooting down enemy aircraft while not being shot down yourself.
As an example, try this. Next time you get in your car, move the seat back just far enough that you can't quite push the footbrake down properly. Then move your rear view mirror so that you have to move your head every time you need to look in it. Then adjust the steering wheel so that it blocks your view of the speedometer. Then go for a drive on a Motorway / Freeway / Autobahn etc. for an hour or so . . .

cheers,
Robin.

 

[spicmart]

How comfortable a plane is to fly has nothing to do with it.

How comfortable a plane is to fly has everything to do with it. If, as the pilot, you're having to fight with the controls, to get the aeroplane to do what you want it to, or can't get the seat and rudder pedals in the correct position for your leg length, or can't sit upright because your head hits the canopy, you won't be able to concentrate on the task in hand; shooting down enemy aircraft while not being shot down yourself.
As an example, try this. Next time you get in your car, move the seat back just far enough that you can't quite push the footbrake down properly. Then move your rear view mirror so that you have to move your head every time you need to look in it. Then adjust the steering wheel so that it blocks your view of the speedometer. Then go for a drive on a Motorway / Freeway / Autobahn etc. for an hour or so . . .

cheers,
Robin.

Granted, you're right.

 

[hesham]

From Aeroplane 1948.

 

[riggerrob]

How comfortable a plane is to fly has nothing to do with it.

How comfortable a plane is to fly has everything to do with it. If, as the pilot, you're having to fight with the controls, to get the aeroplane to do what you want it to, or can't get the seat and rudder pedals in the correct position for your leg length, or can't sit upright because your head hits the canopy, you won't be able to concentrate on the task in hand; shooting down enemy aircraft while not being shot down yourself.
As an example, try this. Next time you get in your car, move the seat back just far enough that you can't quite push the footbrake down properly. Then move your rear view mirror so that you have to move your head every time you need to look in it. Then adjust the steering wheel so that it blocks your view of the speedometer. Then go for a drive on a Motorway / Freeway / Autobahn etc. for an hour or so . . .

cheers,
Robin.

Good point.
Sloppy cockpit ergonomics lead to higher accident rates.
An airplane is not much good in combat if it crashes on its way to the battle.
See Israeli experience with the Avia S-119 version of Me.109. Desperate Israelis bought a few from Czechs. Czech Air Force pilots were glad to see them go because "Mules" were so difficult to fly. As soon as they could afford them, the Israelis Air Force bought Spitfires and Mustangs to replace the hated "Messers" (German word for "knife").

 

[Dynoman]

MB-5 Cockpit - judge for yourself. Unfortunately, ergonomics or the science of human factors had not evolved sufficiently by 1944.

 

[Dagger]

“In my opinion this is an outstanding aircraft, particularly when regarded in the light of the fact that it made its maiden flight as early as 23rd May 1944”
– Test pilot Capt. Eric Brown, 1948

The aircraft Brown was flying wasn't the same as the 1944 one. It had a vertical tail that was 2-3 times larger. The 1944 test pilot reports call it an "absolute pig". When you combine this with offering no performance advantage over existing types and the future pointing towards jets...

Even in 1948 Eric Brown was not happy with the directional stability of the MB.5 despite the bigger vertical tail.

Tony Buttler wrote an interesting article on the Martin-Baker fighters in 'Aeroplane' of December 2020.
Some quotes from that about the MB.5:

"Apparently as early as October 1944 James Martin was informed by officials that his M.B.5 would not enter production because its service entry would take too long."

"On July 25, 1946, the A&AEE issued a report on the flight testing of the M.B.5.
...................
The rate of roll appeared to be low for 1946 standards.
.....................
.......... against contemporary standards the aircraft's performance was described as disappointing, and it was felt that it was underpowered. This opinion was based on the result of poor acceleration and a low rate of climb."

"In 1948, R2496 went to RAE Farnborough, where it was put through its paces in April by the legendary test pilot Capt. Eric Brown. He described the aircraft overall as "outstanding". The lateral handling qualities required improvement, but Brown also commented that he felt at home in the machine from the word go."

 

[HoHun]

Hi,

Thanks a lot! But isn't "lateral" referring to the roll axis, while "directional" is referring to the yaw axis? Not to say the MB.5 couldn't have had more than a single aspect in need of improvement, of course!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Archibald]

How comfortable a plane is to fly has nothing to do with it.

How comfortable a plane is to fly has everything to do with it. If, as the pilot, you're having to fight with the controls, to get the aeroplane to do what you want it to, or can't get the seat and rudder pedals in the correct position for your leg length, or can't sit upright because your head hits the canopy, you won't be able to concentrate on the task in hand; shooting down enemy aircraft while not being shot down yourself.
As an example, try this. Next time you get in your car, move the seat back just far enough that you can't quite push the footbrake down properly. Then move your rear view mirror so that you have to move your head every time you need to look in it. Then adjust the steering wheel so that it blocks your view of the speedometer. Then go for a drive on a Motorway / Freeway / Autobahn etc. for an hour or so . . .

cheers,
Robin.

Good point.
Sloppy cockpit ergonomics lead to higher accident rates.
An airplane is not much good in combat if it crashes on its way to the battle.
See Israeli experience with the Avia S-119 version of Me.109. Desperate Israelis bought a few from Czechs. Czech Air Force pilots were glad to see them go because "Mules" were so difficult to fly. As soon as they could afford them, the Israelis Air Force bought Spitfires and Mustangs to replace the hated "Messers" (German word for "knife").

-I was thinking about this exact case ! Le Fana discussed the Avias a looooong time ago, but I can still vividly remember the opinion of an Israeli pilot related to the controls (can't remember which control, but it was a piece of shit as far as ergonomy was concerned)

"The one who had imagined / designed such a loosy system should have been hanged by his testicles."

Verbatim.

- Even such a good aircraft like the F4U Corsair had some much hated flaws and quirks in the cockpit. From memory: it had no "floor" in the cockpit, so things falling to the "bottom" couldn't be recovered in flight. With dramatic consequences when things like the urinal (UCD ? that's NASA accronym for the "thing that collect human piss during long flights") got lost during veeeeeery long flights over the Pacific...

- Manually retracting undercarriages were also a much hated plague that (luckily) didn't lasted too long.

 

[Dagger]

Hi,

Thanks a lot! But isn't "lateral" referring to the roll axis, while "directional" is referring to the yaw axis? Not to say the MB.5 couldn't have had more than a single aspect in need of improvement, of course!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

I was quoting both Tony Buttler, who mentioned that Brown noted lateral handling problems,
and a Rex's Hangar video on youtube that mentioned Brown's concern about directional instability,
but forgot to include the video link in my previous post:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CJWEc_sQkQ&t=940s

 

[Foo Fighter]

A has come up on another forum about the size of the MB-5 main wings. The suggestion is that this was influenced by the cropping of main wings in certain spitfire marks to improve roll rate at low altitude this positing the MB-5 being intended for relatively low level operation. Not come across this myself and reckon the stubby wings was just a design foible of the MB design 'language'.

Any other thoughts on this?

 

[Justo Miranda]

Hi

 

[Justo Miranda]

Post-2

 

[ZacYates]

While at Reno for the final air races there my friend found John Marlin's hangar and got to see his replica (I never got over there unfortunately and thanks to the accident we had to leave before I could). It's for sale, if anyone's interested

 

[Foo Fighter]

I cannot see that personally, quite a bit shorter than the real deal and I would wonder about stability. Not even as a replica which it is not.
A cartoon aircraft pehaps? No too expensive a folly.

Martin Baker MB-5 Rep for sale....

WARBIRD MB5 • AVAILABLE FOR SALE • replica Martin Baker MB5. counter rotating props. simlar to WW ll Spitfire. For info. 775-624-2585. • Contact John L. Marlin - JOHN L MARLIN located Reno, NV USA • Telephone: 775-624-2585 • Posted April 14, 2007 • Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser •...

www.key.aero