Read the forum code of contact
By: 28th July 2004 at 15:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-check flypast. section in the news area
By: 28th July 2004 at 17:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-(tubular fuselage frame, rather than stressed monocoque)
The original had a tubular frame too.
There's a good feature on MB fighters in Wings of Fame vol. 9 if you have access to a copy.
MB5 - very impressive aircraft from a very small company. It's supposed to have survived until the 60's, if so then it beggars belief that MB allowed it's destruction. Unless... :)
By: 28th July 2004 at 17:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Didnt the guy who is rebuilding it chop 5ft off the length?! Bonkers! But Brilliant!
By: 28th July 2004 at 21:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Didnt the guy who is rebuilding it chop 5ft off the length?! Bonkers! But Brilliant!
I thought he lengthed it just a little, to solve some problem that the original had. Its only what MB would have eventually done anyway - why build a replica that faithfully duplicates some nasty problem of the original?
As for it 'having a different look' - all I can say is 'where?' It looked pretty close to me - and its not like its going to be parked next to the original anytime!!
By: 28th July 2004 at 21:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Actually, isn't the "new-build" MB-5 shorter than the original?
By: 28th July 2004 at 22:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-How about the CAC CA-15 "Kangaroo"...one built and flown in Oz circa 1945-46..
By: 28th July 2004 at 22:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I thought he lengthed it just a little, to solve some problem that the original had. Its only what MB would have eventually done anyway - why build a replica that faithfully duplicates some nasty problem of the original?
Read the history of the MB5 and you'll realise that there were no nasty problems to be solved by some latter-day lookalike builder - everyone who flew it raved about it. :cool:
MB enlarged the tail surfaces early on in it's development and from then on it was just about perfect.
By: 28th July 2004 at 22:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It's 19 inches shorter than the original and has a bigger cockpit to allow for the fully kitted out rear cockpit.
By: 28th July 2004 at 22:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Here is the real 'looker' and performer...
By: 28th July 2004 at 22:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Heres a couple of photos I took at last years Reno races. Unfortunately over the course of the two days I was there, it was very difficult to get a clear shot of the aircraft.
Septic
By: 29th July 2004 at 00:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Raved about it is the right description. Even the usually coldly clinical and dispassionate Boscombe Down report reads like a sales brochure.
I hadn't remembered that the tail surfaces were enlarged but I'm not surprised. James Martin was almost certainly a genius but he seemed to have some bee in his bonnet about aircraft not needing fins. The first MB design had no fin at all. It was modified fairly hastily.
By: 29th July 2004 at 02:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I reckon it looks like a cross between a late model Spit and a P-51.
(Imagine what a Griffon powered P-51 would have been like (Reno racers excluded))
That MB-5 looks fast even parked up.
I wonder, had it been successful whether it would have incorporated their ejection seats........
TNZ
By: 29th July 2004 at 06:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-MB 5
Yes, Every thing I have read about the MB 5 it flew very well :) , Pitty it was destroyed on a English Gunnery range :( , As I understood it there was already to much put in to the Spit and other aircraft at the time, And the war budget simply could not afford it, And yes the new built MB 5 is not a replica as it must have at least 3% of the original, And as it stands there seems to be nothing left of the original :mad: , But it does look nice ;) , Cheers for now, Phil. (P.S I am having my own battles with M.S. at the moment and did a 50min walk today (just made it), Must try to keep the fight going been 12 years now but I must say I am nackered, I will try and stay on this forum for as long as I can Thank you all) Tally Ho! Phil. :cool:
By: 29th July 2004 at 07:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-For the Chap who asked about the Kangaroo
Looks fast too :eek: , Have to be my second dream machine after the MB 5, Does anybody Know if it survived the chop :rolleyes: , Cheers for now, Tally Ho Phil. :cool:
By: 29th July 2004 at 08:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Funny looking beast, isn't it?! :eek:
By: 29th July 2004 at 10:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Looks like a Mustang that's been put through the ringer and stretched on the washing line.... :D
By: 29th July 2004 at 10:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Or a surgically augmented one ;)
By: 29th July 2004 at 10:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Message for Stormbird (Phil)
Hi Phil,
Have noticed your mention of having M.S. a couple of times now, and it's terrible news mate. Keep fighting it and don't let anything stop you. Are you still able to travel much? If so, then maybe we'll have to get you up here to Ballarat sometime. Don't have all that much up here, but I'd be delighted to go through the museum with you, and perhaps I can arrange a couple of other things too :)
Cheers,
Matt
P.S. In reply to a question of yours from another post, I am about 95% sure that there are some bits of the one and only CA-15 still getting around. I can't be 100% sure until I've seen the bits for myself, but my reports are from very credible sources.
Yes, Every thing I have read about the MB 5 it flew very well :) , Pitty it was destroyed on a English Gunnery range :( , As I understood it there was already to much put in to the Spit and other aircraft at the time, And the war budget simply could not afford it, And yes the new built MB 5 is not a replica as it must have at least 3% of the original, And as it stands there seems to be nothing left of the original :mad: , But it does look nice ;) , Cheers for now, Phil. (P.S I am having my own battles with M.S. at the moment and did a 50min walk today (just made it), Must try to keep the fight going been 12 years now but I must say I am nackered, I will try and stay on this forum for as long as I can Thank you all) Tally Ho! Phil. :cool:
By: 29th July 2004 at 10:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The simple reason the MB5 never went into production is it was too late. The first generation jets were already entering service. Both the Meteor and the Vampire had been tested at Boscombe Down before the MB5 even flew.
I don't think it was used for target practice. It's believed to have just been quietly scrapped.
Never heard of the Kangaroo, tell us more.
By: 29th July 2004 at 10:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I thought it was only the Russians that built other peoples designs.
Posts: 2,146
By: STORMBIRD262 - 28th July 2004 at 15:14
Gone but not forgoten :( , Martin Bakers MB 5 Prototype, Someone was building a replica for RENO :cool: , I don't Know if they finished it or if it got to race :confused: , Last I saw it was pretty advanced but still waiting on parts, Anyone Know, Cheers Tally Ho! Phil. ;)