Martin-Baker M.B.1,2 and3
- Thread starter Johnbr
- Start date
Johnbr
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 May 2007
- Messages
- 753
- Reaction score
- 311
Johnbr
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 May 2007
- Messages
- 753
- Reaction score
- 311
Re: Martin-Baker M.B.3
Damn nice find - where did you find them?
Regards,
Greg
Damn nice find - where did you find them?
Regards,
Greg
- Joined
- 22 April 2012
- Messages
- 2,272
- Reaction score
- 2,040
Re: Martin-Baker M.B.3
Outstanding find, especially the MB.3 pictures.
Martin-Baker appears to have had a thing for short stubby wings, they appear on all their single seat fighters, does anyone know the advantages / disadvantages?
Outstanding find, especially the MB.3 pictures.
Martin-Baker appears to have had a thing for short stubby wings, they appear on all their single seat fighters, does anyone know the advantages / disadvantages?
Re: Martin-Baker M.B.3
Low aspect-ratio wings (shorter span, wider average chord) mean stronger (for the same weight) or lighter (for the same strength) structures for a given construction method and material. Maneuverability may also be improved, especially roll rate, because of inertial effects, i.e. it's easier to move a mass (the wing) closer to you than one further away.
If thickness is increased proportionally with the broad chord, as is often the case, the impact on structure weight is even greater. There are also advantages in terms of space in the wings to concentrate other masses like fuel and weapons closer inboard in magnify the inertial effect and therefore responsiveness.
The downside is increased induced drag for a given area which can reduce performance, especially cruise efficiency and performance at high altitude which are especially affected by induced drag. High-speed factors (compressibility at near-supersonic speeds) are also worse with a thick wing.
Look at the various Miles designs for another proponent of thick wings, or compare the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest.
Cheers,
Matthew
Low aspect-ratio wings (shorter span, wider average chord) mean stronger (for the same weight) or lighter (for the same strength) structures for a given construction method and material. Maneuverability may also be improved, especially roll rate, because of inertial effects, i.e. it's easier to move a mass (the wing) closer to you than one further away.
If thickness is increased proportionally with the broad chord, as is often the case, the impact on structure weight is even greater. There are also advantages in terms of space in the wings to concentrate other masses like fuel and weapons closer inboard in magnify the inertial effect and therefore responsiveness.
The downside is increased induced drag for a given area which can reduce performance, especially cruise efficiency and performance at high altitude which are especially affected by induced drag. High-speed factors (compressibility at near-supersonic speeds) are also worse with a thick wing.
Look at the various Miles designs for another proponent of thick wings, or compare the Hawker Typhoon and Tempest.
Cheers,
Matthew
- Joined
- 22 April 2012
- Messages
- 2,272
- Reaction score
- 2,040
Re: Martin-Baker M.B.3
Mole,
Thank you for the reply, so basically none of the Miles single seat fighters were going to be great altitude performers.
Mole,
Thank you for the reply, so basically none of the Miles single seat fighters were going to be great altitude performers.
Re: Martin-Baker M.B.3
They did do some high-aspect ratio designs, including a design study for a single-engine, high-altitude fighter with a high-altitude Merlin 60 engine and twin 20mm cannon, the M23A (not to be confused with the original M23 which had the traditional short, thick Miles wings).
Later Miles designs did include some with high-aspect ratio wings, including some entirely at the other end of the spectrum in cooperation with Hurel-Dubois of France. One of those evolved (with somewhat shorter wings) to become the Shorts Skyvan after the Miles firm's financial collapse after the war.
All these tidbits, and the two attachments, are from Don L. Brown's wonderful MILES AIRCRAFT SINCE 1925, my favorite of the Putnam books and a fitting tribute to an innovative and often overlooked firm.
They did do some high-aspect ratio designs, including a design study for a single-engine, high-altitude fighter with a high-altitude Merlin 60 engine and twin 20mm cannon, the M23A (not to be confused with the original M23 which had the traditional short, thick Miles wings).
Later Miles designs did include some with high-aspect ratio wings, including some entirely at the other end of the spectrum in cooperation with Hurel-Dubois of France. One of those evolved (with somewhat shorter wings) to become the Shorts Skyvan after the Miles firm's financial collapse after the war.
All these tidbits, and the two attachments, are from Don L. Brown's wonderful MILES AIRCRAFT SINCE 1925, my favorite of the Putnam books and a fitting tribute to an innovative and often overlooked firm.
Attachments
- Joined
- 22 April 2012
- Messages
- 2,272
- Reaction score
- 2,040
Mole,
Whilst I meant to type Martin-Baker (yes, I failed), that looks disturbingly like a big wing late model griffon Spitfire!
Whilst I meant to type Martin-Baker (yes, I failed), that looks disturbingly like a big wing late model griffon Spitfire!
sealordlawrence said:
Not unlike a Spitfire, but meant as a purpose-built, specialized fighter to outperform the extended-wing high-altitude model of the Spitfire (still Merlin-engined at that point in the war) on the same Merlin 60 variant engine.
And, oops, I did not mean to hijack the thread, but you DID say Miles and I am always happy to chat about that particular company. Like I said, the Don L. Brown book is my favorite of the Putnam series, though it's a close tie with Réné Francillon's JAPANESE AIRCRAFT OF THE PACIFIC WAR.
- Joined
- 31 May 2006
- Messages
- 654
- Reaction score
- 428
What year was the M23 sketched? I'd guess 41-42 as its powerplant is Merlin 60 series.
- Joined
- 22 April 2012
- Messages
- 2,272
- Reaction score
- 2,040
Mole said:
Well lets not forget that Rolls Royce kept managing to squeeze ever more power out of the Merlin, I know the Merlin 130/131 got to 2,060 hp and I understand that RR bench tested higher HP's? For some reason I remember 2,300hp in that context.
- Joined
- 31 May 2006
- Messages
- 654
- Reaction score
- 428
In 1943 a Merlin 66 made 2380hp in a 15 minute bench run, with 30 lb boost, running at 3300rpm.
The Merlin RM17SM was the last model bench tested and was converted from a Merlin 100 series engine. It was bench run in 1944, had different cam timing, increased supercharger impeller diameters and RPM was pushed up to 3150 (from 3000).
In one bench test the engine was inadvertantly run to a higher power than intended. During this 30 min run; 2340hp was recorded at 3000rpm and 30 lb boost in MS gear. Later it passed its type test rated at 2200hp at 2000ft, and 2100hp at 15,000ft on 115/150 fuel.
Late in 1944 a Merlin 66 was converted to RM17SM standard and made a test run in which 2620hp at 3150rpm, using 36lb boost with water injection as reached. The run lasted 15 minutes in what was described as a "sprint run".
The RM17SM didn't get a type designation because it was too late in the war.
This information comes from The Merlin 100 Series - the ultimate military development by Alec Harvey-Bailey and Dave Piggot, published by the Rolls Royce Heritage Trust.
The Merlin RM17SM was the last model bench tested and was converted from a Merlin 100 series engine. It was bench run in 1944, had different cam timing, increased supercharger impeller diameters and RPM was pushed up to 3150 (from 3000).
In one bench test the engine was inadvertantly run to a higher power than intended. During this 30 min run; 2340hp was recorded at 3000rpm and 30 lb boost in MS gear. Later it passed its type test rated at 2200hp at 2000ft, and 2100hp at 15,000ft on 115/150 fuel.
Late in 1944 a Merlin 66 was converted to RM17SM standard and made a test run in which 2620hp at 3150rpm, using 36lb boost with water injection as reached. The run lasted 15 minutes in what was described as a "sprint run".
The RM17SM didn't get a type designation because it was too late in the war.
This information comes from The Merlin 100 Series - the ultimate military development by Alec Harvey-Bailey and Dave Piggot, published by the Rolls Royce Heritage Trust.
- Joined
- 22 April 2012
- Messages
- 2,272
- Reaction score
- 2,040
Nick,
Thanks for the reply, I knew there was greater potential in the Merlin, it is kind of a shame that by that stage in the war UK built single engine fighters had switched to larger displacement engines in the form of Centaurus, Sabre and Griffon. Yet North American continued getting more performance out of the Mustang with the smaller engine; not to mention its longer range.
Thanks for the reply, I knew there was greater potential in the Merlin, it is kind of a shame that by that stage in the war UK built single engine fighters had switched to larger displacement engines in the form of Centaurus, Sabre and Griffon. Yet North American continued getting more performance out of the Mustang with the smaller engine; not to mention its longer range.
- Joined
- 31 May 2006
- Messages
- 654
- Reaction score
- 428
Like the Merlin the Sabre had more development potential, Griffon and Centaurus really reached their peak (as fighter engines) in Spitefuls and Sea Furies.
A Sabre VII (which had only a single stage 2 speed supercharger) was bench run at 3750hp for 175 hours non stop, another reached 4000hp. No details of the final developments - the E118 and E122 - have emerged (that I know of) but they were to have two stage 3 speed superchargers and gearing for contra props.
A Sabre VII (which had only a single stage 2 speed supercharger) was bench run at 3750hp for 175 hours non stop, another reached 4000hp. No details of the final developments - the E118 and E122 - have emerged (that I know of) but they were to have two stage 3 speed superchargers and gearing for contra props.
- Joined
- 22 April 2012
- Messages
- 2,272
- Reaction score
- 2,040
I know that over 3,000hp was extracted from the Centaurus for the Beverley.
I have always been a fan of the Sabre, its just a shame it took Napier so long to make it work, and then make it work at altitude, and it took so long for Hawker to make a wing that would allow full performance. I have always regarded the Fury I aircraft LA610 and VP207 with the Sabre VII as the pinnacle of British single piston engine fighters and that they had real high and medium altitude performance. I once did a comparison using the Flight Global Archive and due to its much higher base HP rating the Sabre VII faired relatively well in terms of HP output at various altitudes to the Griffon 130.
The final Sabre variant that I have discovered is referenced singularly here: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1958/1958%20-%200880.html?search=Napier%20Sabre%20VIII
However I have no idea which supercharger the Sabre VIII had or whether it was geared for a contra-prop..?
One can only imagine how well a Fury with 4,000hp coming out of an engine with a 2 stage 3 speed supercharger turning a contra-prop would have performed. There was also the experimental annular intake that was flown with a Sabre VI powered Tempest and the annular ducted spinner that was tested later.
Whoever edited the wikipedia article on the Sabre has late model prototypes making 5,500hp with boost though unhelpfully that claim is not referenced. What is astonishing is that these performance figures were being achieved on roughly the same displacement as the Griffon.
I have always been a fan of the Sabre, its just a shame it took Napier so long to make it work, and then make it work at altitude, and it took so long for Hawker to make a wing that would allow full performance. I have always regarded the Fury I aircraft LA610 and VP207 with the Sabre VII as the pinnacle of British single piston engine fighters and that they had real high and medium altitude performance. I once did a comparison using the Flight Global Archive and due to its much higher base HP rating the Sabre VII faired relatively well in terms of HP output at various altitudes to the Griffon 130.
The final Sabre variant that I have discovered is referenced singularly here: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1958/1958%20-%200880.html?search=Napier%20Sabre%20VIII
However I have no idea which supercharger the Sabre VIII had or whether it was geared for a contra-prop..?
One can only imagine how well a Fury with 4,000hp coming out of an engine with a 2 stage 3 speed supercharger turning a contra-prop would have performed. There was also the experimental annular intake that was flown with a Sabre VI powered Tempest and the annular ducted spinner that was tested later.
Whoever edited the wikipedia article on the Sabre has late model prototypes making 5,500hp with boost though unhelpfully that claim is not referenced. What is astonishing is that these performance figures were being achieved on roughly the same displacement as the Griffon.
- Joined
- 25 July 2007
- Messages
- 4,154
- Reaction score
- 3,797
Someone on the What If discussion group said that there was a line drawing of the MB2 Mk.II with
retractable gear in Spitfire: The History. He said that "It's more like the Stormovik" ('it' presumably referring to the style of u/c retraction).
Does anyone have a copy to hand?
Spitfire: The History by Eric B. Morgan and Edward Shacklady
Key Publications; 2nd edition (November 2000)
ISBN-10: 0946219486
ISBN-13: 978-0946219483
retractable gear in Spitfire: The History. He said that "It's more like the Stormovik" ('it' presumably referring to the style of u/c retraction).
Does anyone have a copy to hand?
Spitfire: The History by Eric B. Morgan and Edward Shacklady
Key Publications; 2nd edition (November 2000)
ISBN-10: 0946219486
ISBN-13: 978-0946219483
M. A. Rozon
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 17 February 2007
- Messages
- 111
- Reaction score
- 58
I have that book. I will try to find and scan the drawing in question.
B)
B)
M. A. Rozon
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 17 February 2007
- Messages
- 111
- Reaction score
- 58
Hardrada55
ACCESS: Confidential
- Joined
- 31 May 2008
- Messages
- 111
- Reaction score
- 81
Like to see a drawing of the M.B. 2 with the big rudder, the retractable landing gear and the Rolls Royce "Exe" engine.
red admiral
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 16 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,607
- Reaction score
- 1,871
sealordlawrence said:
I think that was me, with the information coming from Setright, L. J. K.: The Power to Fly: The Development of the Piston Engine in Aviation. I seem to remember he'd sourced it from Napier documents. 45lb boost and increased rpm instead of the wartime 13lb and 3800rpm gives quite some scope for improvement in power. From memory, the main issue run into was dissipating all the heat generated.
What advantages/disadvantages did the Martin Baker method of construction have over that used by other companies, i've heard the 'could be built outside of traditional aviation companies' but are there any other?
Be interesting to see if there was a weight penalty, if there was, the performance of the MB3 and 5 suggests, it could be overcome.
Would also be interesting to know how it compared to the steel tube construction used in the B.9/38 Emergency Bomber that became the Albermale.
Be interesting to see if there was a weight penalty, if there was, the performance of the MB3 and 5 suggests, it could be overcome.
Would also be interesting to know how it compared to the steel tube construction used in the B.9/38 Emergency Bomber that became the Albermale.
- Joined
- 25 July 2007
- Messages
- 4,154
- Reaction score
- 3,797
The Ablemare fuselage had then-conventional welded steel-tube construction. James Martin's tubular structures were bolted together with a patented joint. Each tubular compenent, according to Flight (20 Dec 1934), "may be replaced with a minimum of trouble and very little skilled supervision."
Another advantage of the Martin system was that airframes could be designed to have a high degree of individual tube interchangeability. The downsides were the skilled work needed to prepare the tube ends and create the tapered bolts used for assembly.
Of course, for the MB.3 and MB.5, Martin abandoned his patented wing construction system. In place of the bolted truss based on three T.5 steel tubes, the MB.3 and MB.5 employed a more conventional wing - with a spar of laminated strip with aluminum web; ribs were also of light alloy.
Image: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1934/1934%20-%201343.html
Another advantage of the Martin system was that airframes could be designed to have a high degree of individual tube interchangeability. The downsides were the skilled work needed to prepare the tube ends and create the tapered bolts used for assembly.
Of course, for the MB.3 and MB.5, Martin abandoned his patented wing construction system. In place of the bolted truss based on three T.5 steel tubes, the MB.3 and MB.5 employed a more conventional wing - with a spar of laminated strip with aluminum web; ribs were also of light alloy.
Image: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1934/1934%20-%201343.html
Attachments
- Joined
- 25 July 2007
- Messages
- 4,154
- Reaction score
- 3,797
Stéphane: that notion of a 'bubble' canopied MB.3 originated with a 3-view by Dennis Punnett for William Green's Warplanes of the Second World War: Fighters, Vol. 2 (ISBN 0385032595).
The drawing (on pg.87) was accompanied by a retouched photo of the MB.3 prototype purporting to show that aircraft "after initial trials [with] an all-around-vision 'bubble' type canopy". At the time of publication (1961), the retouched photo was assumed to be genuine.
A bubble canopy had been designed for the MB.3 but it was never fitted. Apparently, the six cannon armament was fitted during assembly but removed before flight tests began.
The drawing (on pg.87) was accompanied by a retouched photo of the MB.3 prototype purporting to show that aircraft "after initial trials [with] an all-around-vision 'bubble' type canopy". At the time of publication (1961), the retouched photo was assumed to be genuine.
A bubble canopy had been designed for the MB.3 but it was never fitted. Apparently, the six cannon armament was fitted during assembly but removed before flight tests began.
Jan den Das
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 27 December 2008
- Messages
- 290
- Reaction score
- 64
All very interresting, but very little about the MB.1
Is there anybody who has details of the cabin/cockpit?
And how and in which colors was it painted?
Until now I cannot find these details
Is there anybody who has details of the cabin/cockpit?
And how and in which colors was it painted?
Until now I cannot find these details
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,613
- Reaction score
- 4,068
The best images I can find that show any detail at all, are these M.B.1 pictures.
First two from http://www.airwar.ru/enc/law1/mb1.html.
Third picture, showing James Martin standing by the M.B.1 is from http://www.martin-baker.com/about/mb1-mb5#prettyPhoto
First two from http://www.airwar.ru/enc/law1/mb1.html.
Third picture, showing James Martin standing by the M.B.1 is from http://www.martin-baker.com/about/mb1-mb5#prettyPhoto
Attachments
Jan den Das
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 27 December 2008
- Messages
- 290
- Reaction score
- 64
Thanks, these I found already.
Similar threads
-
-
-
“The Ultimate Allied Fighters of the Second World War” by Justo Miranda
- Started by Justo Miranda
- Replies: 40
-
-
