Martin Baker builds single seat fighters for the FAA.

[Kevin J]

Take the MB 2, put floats on it and you have a fighter for the Norwegian campaign and later instead of the Hurricat. Fold the wings back as per the MB 1, retract the undercarriage, 100 octane fuel, so no need for the Martlet. Give Martin Baker the contracts for the Sabre and Griffon powered fighters that the FAA need. So the MB 3 & 5 go to sea too. No need for the Hellcat or Corsair.

 

[Admiral Beez]

With their wide undercarriage, I like the MB fighters for the FAA, ideally instead of the Blackburn Firebrand. But they seem to come too late. The MB3 didn't fly until summer 1942, and of course suffered issues with the Sabre engine, killing Baker. The Griffon-powered MB5 had a more carrier-friendly forward cockpit, but again didn't fly until 1944. By the time the MB3 or 5 are ready the FAA is already stocked with Hellcats and Corsairs with superlative Hawker Sea Fury soon to enter service.

Take the MB 2, put floats on it and you have a fighter for the Norwegian campaign and later instead of the Hurricat. Fold the wings back as per the MB 1, retract the undercarriage,

We need to get Martin-Baker into the FAA's attention (folding wing MB1 for carrier liaison aircraft?) and into the fighter game earlier, and not with Napier engines. So, let's give 1938's MB2 the best chances of success, giving it a Merlin engine. If fixed undercarriage is fine for the best carrier fighter in the world, the Mitsubishi A5M, then it's fine for the MB2. So, a possible timeline: 1938, RAF rejects the MB2 for the tropical fighter concept. FAA, newly freed from RAF control takes an interest instead of the Fulmar, but demands that the sketchy Napier get replaced with a Merlin. Early 1939 the prototype folding wing, Merlin-powered MB2 makes its first landing on HMS Ark Royal for deck and lift trials.

 

[Kevin J]

With their wide undercarriage, I like the MB fighters for the FAA, ideally instead of the Blackburn Firebrand. But they seem to come too late. The MB3 didn't fly until summer 1942, and of course suffered issues with the Sabre engine, killing Baker. The Griffon-powered MB5 had a more carrier-friendly forward cockpit, but again didn't fly until 1944. By the time the MB3 or 5 are ready the FAA is already stocked with Hellcats and Corsairs with superlative Hawker Sea Fury soon to enter service.

We need to get Martin-Baker into the fighter game earlier, and not with Napier engines.

It took one year from first flight to service debut for the Hellcat. I don't see why it should be anything different for the MB fighters which were simple to build and used semi-skilled labour. Perhaps the MB 3 should have got the single stage Griffon rather than the Sabre though. Yes, wide undercarriage, superb and fold the wings upwards. Service intro as per Hellcat in USN. MB 5 service intro as per F4U-4. They would have been winners. The MB 2, I don't like the Dagger, but the Wildcat never had a lot of speed either. It wasn't needed for the role it performed. The Sea Fury didn't enter widespread service until 1948, only a few in 1947. I don't see any problem with your objections that couldn't be overcome. We still need the Sea Hurricane and the Merlin powered Seafire though.

 

[Admiral Beez]

K Kevin J MB3 and 5 are too late. If we want MB to win at this they must get the MB2 into the earliest possible FAA service, ideally to replace the Sea Gladiator instead of the Fulmar. Use Merlin engine, add three blade variable pitch prop. Keep the fixed undercarriage, fold the wings, add a hook, etc. With these changes the MB2 will rock the naval fighter game. Provided landing speed and low speed handling is good - was it?

But Fairey and Blackburn have a lock on FAA contracts, and MB don't have a factory to mass produce their aircraft. Best to get one of them onside as partners in the MB2.

Some wicked pics of an updated MB2 here Alternative RAF fighters

 

[Kevin J]

K Kevin J MB3 and 5 are too late. If we want MB to win at this they must get the MB2 into the earliest possible FAA service, ideally to replace the Sea Gladiator instead of the Fulmar. Use Merlin engine, add three blade variable pitch prop. Keep the fixed undercarriage, fold the wings, add a hook, etc. With these changes the MB2 will rock the naval fighter game. Provided landing speed and low speed handling is good - was it?

But Fairey and Blackburn have a lock on FAA contracts, and MB don't have a factory to mass produce their aircraft. Best to get one of them onside as partners in the MB2.

Some wicked pics of an updated MB2 here Alternative RAF fighters

You still need the Fulmar. My suggestion would be say 50 MB2's with floats instead of 50 BP Roc's with floats. Preferably no Roc's at all maybe MB2's instead. Instead of lots of target tug Defiants, Battles and Henleys build MB2's, that way we don't need Grumman Martlets and Wildcats. The production capacity is there.

 

[Kevin J]

I'm still getting ideas. So no Roc, but 50 MB 2s with floats followed by 85 MB 2s with Skis for use by FCS & MAC. I accept the point about non recovery of float planes in Atlantic and Arctic. So skis allow the fighter to hydroplane along until it slowly sinks, no draggy Hurricane radiator to pull it under quickly. All built by Boulton Paul. Still have unsuccessful MB 3. MB 4 built as navy fighter, MB 5 for land based units. BP builds them instead of Barracuda. The 85 ski equipped MB 2s free up Hurricats so that they can be operated off Ark Royal etc as Sea Hurricane Ibs. So Ark Royal etc have outriggers and deck parks earlier.

 

[Shortround6]

Skis will only work on pond smooth water. If you can't land a floatplane (giant skis) little skis are only going to dig into a wave and flip the plane.
Both the Finns and the Canadians put skis on Hurricanes.

If you yank the Dagger engine out of the MB 2 and replace it with a Merlin you don't gain that much over the Hurricane and darn little over the Spitfire. You are going through a lot of work for pretty much a duplication of effort/results.
Martin Baker doesn't have a real factory. They have a shop. By the end of WW II they had built how many airframes total? You either need to get an existing factory to build your MB 2s (and then what don't they build) or you need to build a real factory for Martin Baker, equip it and staff it for the number of planes you want to build in the time frame you want to build them. As in how many planes per month to get to you 135 plane total?

 

[stona]

The MSFU Hurricanes on the CAMships really struggled to make interceptions due to a lack of a sufficient speed differential over their targets. An aircraft which was 35-40 mph slower, before you add floats or skis would be absolutely useless in the role.

The pilots who launched from CAMships usually bailed out. The unsuitability of the Hurricane for ditching was never a consideration.

Two chose to ditch. One, the very first launch (Bob Everett), ditched and later commented that his Hurricane did not even float for the 1.7 seconds guaranteed by Hawker. A second (Sandy Sanders) ditched to find the Hurricane floating on its back, with him under water, he escaped and clung to the wing for a few seconds before the aircraft sank.

One (Jackie Burr) flew to land at Keg Ostrov . On being asked whether he would bail out by his FDO he had replied "Too bloody cold, I'll try to save the aircraft" and set off for the Soviet Union, arriving with just four gallons of fuel left in his tanks. .

One of those who bailed out (Norman Taylor) was a non-swimmer, something he had omitted to tell anyone when he volunteered for the MSFU. He later said that no one had asked him. He very nearly drowned.

There were only nine operational launchings and only one pilot (John Kendal) who hit the sea under a partially opened canopy, was lost.

The Hurricanes were cheap, readily available and suitable for the job. There was no need for yet another type, with another engine and another logistical tale, for use on any of the escort ships in their place.

 

[Kevin J]

Skis will only work on pond smooth water. If you can't land a floatplane (giant skis) little skis are only going to dig into a wave and flip the plane.
Both the Finns and the Canadians put skis on Hurricanes.

If you yank the Dagger engine out of the MB 2 and replace it with a Merlin you don't gain that much over the Hurricane and darn little over the Spitfire. You are going through a lot of work for pretty much a duplication of effort/results.
Martin Baker doesn't have a real factory. They have a shop. By the end of WW II they had built how many airframes total? You either need to get an existing factory to build your MB 2s (and then what don't they build) or you need to build a real factory for Martin Baker, equip it and staff it for the number of planes you want to build in the time frame you want to build them. As in how many planes per month to get to you 135 plane total?

You gat Boulton Paul to do it. It's called giving the little guy the opportunity to grow. Perhaps not possible in Imperial Britain, certainly possible in USA. Okay so we need fighter float planes then ski equipped fighters for Norway. Crystal ball too.

 

[Admiral Beez]

You gat Boulton Paul to do it. It's called giving the little guy the opportunity to grow. Perhaps not possible in Imperial Britain, certainly possible in USA. Okay so we need fighter float planes then ski equipped fighters for Norway. Crystal ball too.

Boulton Paul, post 1934's spin off from the larger corporation is Britain's Brewster, makers of rubbish. I wouldn't ask them to make anything I had any aspiration of.

 

[swampyankee]

Boulton Paul, post 1934's spin off from the larger corporation is Britain's Brewster, makers of rubbish. I wouldn't ask them to make anything I had any aspiration of.

Did Boulton Paul have the q/c problems that plagued and destroyed Brewster?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Did Boulton Paul have the q/c problems that plagued and destroyed Brewster?

Not that I'm aware of. Bolton Paul destroyed itself by making poor designs. Have you seen their bizarre p.92 fighter, see link below to half scale prototype.

Here's Wikipedia's list of all of Boulton Paul's aircraft since the creation of the company in 1934.

• Boulton Paul P.71A 1934 – transport derivative of the Mailplane
• Boulton Paul Defiant 1937 – turret fighter
• Boulton Paul P.92 1941 – fighter/ground attack
• Boulton Paul Balliol 1947 – trainer
• Boulton Paul P.111 1950 – delta wing research
• Boulton Paul P.112 1950s – proposed three seat training aircraft, not built
• Boulton Paul P.116 1950s – proposed two seat training aircraft, not built
• Boulton Paul P.117 wing controlled aerodyne
• Boulton Paul P.120 1952 – delta wing research
• Boulton Paul P.130 proposed VTOL aircraft
• Boulton Paul P.134 proposed VTOL aircraft
• Boulton Paul P.135 proposed VTOL aircraft
• Boulton Paul P.136 proposed VTOL aircraft
• Boulton Paul P.137 VTOL research aircraft
• Boulton Paul P.140 proposed VTOL airliner
• Boulton Paul P.141 proposed VTOL airliner
• Boulton Paul P.142 VTOL research aircraft
• Boulton Paul P.143 proposed VTOL airliner
• Boulton Paul P.145 proposed VTOL twin-boom aircraft

Their only design that made it into production and service was the Defiant, plus the postwar Balliol. Mind you, some may think the Defiant would have made for a good single seat FAA fighter, but that's been discussed ad nauseum.

My point is if Messrs. Martin and Baker want someone to produce the MB2 or anything else, they'd better find another partner, one that can open doors and win contracts. What about CAC in Australia, get some Aussie government dollars?

 

[Kevin J]

Not that I'm aware of. Bolton Paul destroyed itself by making poor designs. Have you seen their bizarre p.92 fighter, see link below to half scale prototype.

Here's Wikipedia's list of all of Boulton Paul's aircraft since the creation of the company in 1934.

• Boulton Paul P.71A 1934 – transport derivative of the Mailplane
• Boulton Paul Defiant 1937 – turret fighter
• Boulton Paul P.92 1941 – fighter/ground attack
• Boulton Paul Balliol 1947 – trainer
• Boulton Paul P.111 1950 – delta wing research
• Boulton Paul P.112 1950s – proposed three seat training aircraft, not built
• Boulton Paul P.116 1950s – proposed two seat training aircraft, not built
• Boulton Paul P.117 wing controlled aerodyne
• Boulton Paul P.120 1952 – delta wing research
• Boulton Paul P.130 proposed VTOL aircraft
• Boulton Paul P.134 proposed VTOL aircraft
• Boulton Paul P.135 proposed VTOL aircraft
• Boulton Paul P.136 proposed VTOL aircraft
• Boulton Paul P.137 VTOL research aircraft
• Boulton Paul P.140 proposed VTOL airliner
• Boulton Paul P.141 proposed VTOL airliner
• Boulton Paul P.142 VTOL research aircraft
• Boulton Paul P.143 proposed VTOL airliner
• Boulton Paul P.145 proposed VTOL twin-boom aircraft

Their only design that made it into production and service was the Defiant, plus the postwar Balliol. Mind you, some may think the Defiant would have made for a good single seat FAA fighter, but that's been discussed ad nauseum.

My point is if Messrs. Martin and Baker want someone to produce the MB2 or anything else, they'd better find another partner, one that can open doors and win contracts. What about CAC in Australia, get some Aussie government dollars?

After the Defiant they built the Barracuda, so they did have spare production capacity probably better used on the MB 4 & MB 5 though. Maybe CAC for the MB 2. Perhaps the MB 3 with an R 2800 would be better.

 

[Shortround6]

Maybe CAC for the MB 2

What have you got against the Australians?

They are nice people.

 

[wuzak]

Martin-Baker's own designs tended to be slow to be built because Martin-Baker spent much of the war doing prototyping and modifications for other manufacturers.

 

[yulzari]

Boulton Paul, post 1934's spin off from the larger corporation is Britain's Brewster, makers of rubbish. I wouldn't ask them to make anything I had any aspiration of.

Boulton Paul's engineering and production quality was fine. A respectable engineering company. What ever one might think of the Defiant turret fighter, the airframe was well made.

 

[fubar57]

OK....when and where did Kevin lose it?