Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Britain produces MB3 & 5

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Britain produces MB3 & 5

    in large numbers instead of jets.

    MB5
    Performance
    Maximum speed: 460 mph at 20,000 ft (740 km/h at 6,100 m)
    Range: 1,100 mi (1,770 km)
    Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
    Rate of climb: 3,800 ft/min (19.3 m/s)
    Armament
    4 20 mm Hispano Mk.II cannon

  • #2
    Apparently the test pilots thought it was excellent. It would've made an excellent addition to the RAF. Wouldnt have changed the war much. The MB 5 would've been ready in 1945 so its use would've been limited. If the RAF had dumped the Jets for it, i imagine the legacy would've been, the RAF would've been lagging behind in the post war develpment of jet aircraft when the americans were developing the sabre and more importantly for the RAF, the Russian were developing the very good MIG 15.

    Comment


    • #3
      Sad but true on jets. War wouldn't change much I would agree. Contra rotating propellors were very problematic in US planes.

      It would have however given Brits the title of best fighter likely., ( prop ones anyway).V-1's could've been run down easier with this kite.

      Comment


      • #4
        Yeah, but then we would never be able to immortalize spitfire

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Purple fang View Post
          It would have however given Brits the title of best fighter likely., ( prop ones anyway).V-1's could've been run down easier with this kite.
          It was only 12 mph faster than the Spitfire XIV, and the max altitude and max climb of the MB5 was poorer than the Mk XIV.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jt1863 View Post
            Yeah, but then we would never be able to immortalize spitfire
            Oh i dont think the mb5 would have done anything to stop that mate. Shes an immortal legend and if you look at my avatar pic, there is the man that designed the most beautiful machine ever made!

            Comment


            • #7
              It was only 12 mph faster than the Spitfire XIV, and the max altitude and max climb of the MB5 was poorer than the Mk XIV.

              That's very interesting. I would imagine a 44 version of it would have even better performance specs that the 43 prototype though. & it is also relevant at differing altitudes the speeds were, on the deck, 20.000 ft etc.

              Rate of climb, 3,800 ft/min

              Very correct on climb, & sorry, it was MB3 that was 42/43 prototype, MB5 flew in early 44, still, it could have been upgraded by late 44-early 45.
              Last edited by Purple fang; 31 Aug 07, 00:09.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
                Apparently the test pilots thought it was excellent. It would've made an excellent addition to the RAF. Wouldn't have changed the war much. The MB 5 would've been ready in 1945 so its use would've been limited. If the RAF had dumped the Jets for it, i imagine the legacy would've been, the RAF would've been lagging behind in the post war development of jet aircraft when the Americans were developing the sabre and more importantly for the RAF, the Russian were developing the very good MIG 15.
                Interesting point and IMHO Britain did lag behind in jet development. Whilst the US and USSR were developing the F86 and Mig 15 respectively, Britain continued with the Meteor, Vampire and Sea Hawk. All straight wing aircraft.

                In the immediate post war period they seemed much more interested in breaking the sound barrier than front line fighters and this was really where all the design effort was going. During the Korean war when the US was using Sabre's, Panther's and Banshee's the UK was using Sea Fury's and Fireflies! Australia was using the British Meteor, which was so outclassed it was used as a ground attack aircraft.

                Only slightly later with the advent of the Lightning and Hunter did the UK pull forward with better designs,
                Wolster

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Wolster View Post
                  Interesting point and IMHO Britain did lag behind in jet development. Whilst the US and USSR were developing the F86 and Mig 15 respectively, Britain continued with the Meteor, Vampire and Sea Hawk. All straight wing aircraft.
                  ,

                  Your right we were behind did terms of the air ministry and the government but not actually our available technology. The boffins had come up with a delta winged jet that has been proven by engineers since ,that it probably would have been the first aircraft to break the sound barrier and as a jet not a rocket plane like the x planes. However the project was deemed too "dangerous " by the bean counters and canned. This happened again 20 years later with the harrier which originally was a supersonic design but canned to a smaller role that we know today and of course the tsr2 project which apparently was way ahead of its time but again canned.It ruined our aircraft industy. We could have had Europes answer to Mcdonnel Douglas, and Skunk works but it wasnt to be. Im sorry i digressed with that rant there, I do apologise and your spot on with your Korea poin with Sea furies against mig 15's.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Oh , his name is on the tip of my toungue, ...... is it R.J Mitchell on your avatar Copenhagen? I think that is his name, and your dead right , the world of aviation owes him some kind of debt for that magnificent design.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      By the way, in relation to the Korean war , i remember fleetingly that a meteor pilot, who was serving in the RAAF in Korea , was actually credited with the only kill for the type in that theatre . I think the guys surname was Hale? Could be wrong though, so would appreciate any help from my esteemed collegues!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Too dangerous by the bean counters eh? Well, who said higher ups were good at decision making. On the British side, I do think lack of funds & resources played quite a role in this subject, unlike the US who could mass produce even pianos & girls dolls for the Russians in Lend Lease.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          IIRC, a British military officer did come up with a decent jet engine design early on, but he couldn't interest GOB's in doing anything with it until it became known that the Germans were developing them.

                          Early jets weren't terribly useful, being just a tad unreliable and really only manueverable at slower speeds. The Achilles heel of the Me262 is a case in point - fast in the air, but a sitting duck during landings and take-offs.

                          Early on, the concern was with high speed more or less in a straight line, but a good fighter needs a lot more than that to gain and maintain superiority.

                          That all being said, WWII would certainly have been interesting if jets were actualities in the 30's and ready for ceploymeny in the early 40's. The obvious hole in that concept, of course, is that technology in general simply wasn't up to it at the time. The designs that were produced represent the cutting edge of technological achievement at the time.

                          Would have made history awfully interesting, though.
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The british miltary officer was Frank Whittle who came up with the first jet design in the late 20's and made it in the early 30's. He gave it to the British Government for obvious reasons but guess what they did it. Yes thats right they said a plane cannot fly without a propeller and so they gave it to the MG motor company who put it on wait for it a car and then said it wasnt really practical. So no Jet fighters for the start of the war.

                            Your right the me 262 engine wasnt reliable like you say but it wasnt the technology that was the problem it was the materials. The fan blades had to be made from aluminium and steel for example which used to melt because they couldnt get enough raw materials like tungsten to make it work properly. Lack of supplies was the main problem not the engineering.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Purple fang View Post
                              Sad but true on jets. War wouldn't change much I would agree. Contra rotating propellors were very problematic in US planes.

                              It would have however given Brits the title of best fighter likely., ( prop ones anyway).V-1's could've been run down easier with this kite.
                              You could also look up the Supermarine Spiteful. Its maiden flight was a month after the MB5 but its performance was better and it actually made it into production

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X