Martin-Baker MB-5

[spicmart]

How good was the Martin-Baker MB-5? I often read that she could have 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 which was powered by a Griffonengine, too. How could she have performed better than those with worse powerloading and wingloading?
A case of hyperbole?

 

[Howard Gibson]

I am suspicious about performance figures of prototype aircraft. The MB-5 did 460mph with an RR Griffon_83 with 2350HP and a contra-rotating six blade propeller. A Spitfire_21 did 453mph with an RR Griffon_61 with 2050HP and a five blade propeller.

Look at the YouTube videos of the MB-5. There is at least one clip showing the covers removed from the rear fuselage. There is no armour plate behind the pilot. Was it carrying guns and ammo? These are useful in combat.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

I dont have enough archive files to elaborate on this much, but I will say that I think had it gone into production in early 1945 - you could make the argument that it was by that stage, highly unlikely to be any better than a P-51 H - and therefore hardly justified the massive effort it would have taken to mass produce a prototype made by a tiny firm with essentially zero aircraft production facilities.

Thats essentially my personal opinion.

 

[spicmart]

What about the aerodynamics of the MB machines? Did the company get input of the latest aerodynamic findings, was it possible to wind-tunnel-test it?
It's wings were obviously not of the laminar flow type most aircraft designers were striving for at this stage of fighter aircraft development.

 

[Howard Gibson]

What about the aerodynamics of the MB machines?

460mph is not phenomenally fast for something with a two stage supercharger Griffon. It is barely faster than the 1936 technology Spitfires with a similar engine. The performance figures you see for P-51Hs are with all sorts of war emergency power stuff turned on. With everybody on 100/130 octane fuel, the MB5 might be a bit quicker, but not much. The P-51H had substantially less power.

Note the lack of pilot armour on all the photos I have looked at. William Green's War Planes of the Second World War Fighter Volume 2, describes the armament as Hispano Mark IIs, and shows cannons barely sticking out of the wings, consistent with Hispano Mark Vs, or possibly no cannons mounted yet. Green describes the cannon installation as "exceptionally well arranged", so they must have been in there at some point.

The aircraft impressed a bunch of people, including Eric Brown, so there was something there. It was not a quantum technological leap.

 

[buffnut453]

Personally, I always thought it a shame that the MB.3 never made it beyond the prototype stage. I'd particularly like to have seen the version with the bubble canopy and cut-down rear fuselage. Getting that into service in late 1942 would have been awesome, albeit probably not with the Sabre engine....

 

[Jabberwocky]

As a piston powered fighter aircraft?

Once the lateral instability issue was resolved over mid to late 1944, it was reportedly excellent - fast, long ranged and easy to fly across the envelope. Several test/trials pilots considered it more maneuverable and easier to fly than the Griffon powered Spitfires.
Eric Brown noted in 1946 that lateral instability was still not ideal, and that the ailerons were somewhat ineffective, hampering its rate of roll.
The A&AEE praised the aircraft for its cockpit layout (which they considered should be the future standard), as well as for its ease of maintenance, servicing and ability to turn around (refuel/rearm) quickly.

As a weapon of war? It was too little, too late.

Given the need for the rear fuselage/tail section redo, the MB-5 wouldn't have been ready for service until mid 1945 (at the earliest). It didn't really offer a significant advance over piston powered aircraft that were already in service (Spitfire XIV and 21, Tempest V/II), starting production (Hornet and Spiteful) or on order (Fury). It was also already clear that the jet was the way of the future, so starting production of yet another piston powered aircraft design - even a superlative one - didn't make any sense.

 

[wuzak]

460mph is not phenomenally fast for something with a two stage supercharger Griffon. It is barely faster than the 1936 technology Spitfires with a similar engine. The performance figures you see for P-51Hs are with all sorts of war emergency power stuff turned on. With everybody on 100/130 octane fuel, the MB5 might be a bit quicker, but not much. The P-51H had substantially less power.

Those "1936 technology Spitfires" had been somewhat refined over the years.

At the same time that the MB.5 was being built Supermarine were putting together the Spiteful, which was some 30mph faster.