Author Topic: Martin Baker MB5  (Read 1565 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Closeted Take That fan
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 21408
  • Whiffing since the 70s
Re: Martin Baker MB5
« Reply #45 on: March 18, 2017, 03:42:12 pm »
I looked at that cutaway drawing but now you point them out, they appear really clear where they are. I'd like a higher res picture of if please Kit, thanks very much.

So, if the MB5 has a range of 1100 miles (550 radius of action), if I put on two 200 Gal drop tanks, it would have three times the range wouldn't it.

Yes............  ;D

I'll email you the big cutaway, it's 2.7 megs, vastly too big for here.
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Online joncarrfarrelly

  • Bertie Bassett
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 5771
Re: Martin Baker MB5
« Reply #46 on: March 18, 2017, 06:00:30 pm »
200 gal tanks would be a mistake as the size would have a very negative effect on drag.
~115-135 would make more sense as the big 165 US drop tanks were generally only used
for ferry purposes, and 200 gal tanks would be big.

Offline PR19_Kit

  • Closeted Take That fan
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 21408
  • Whiffing since the 70s
Re: Martin Baker MB5
« Reply #47 on: March 18, 2017, 07:11:49 pm »
A wet wing would make lots of sense. (I sound like a stuck record.............)
Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Online joncarrfarrelly

  • Bertie Bassett
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 5771
Re: Martin Baker MB5
« Reply #48 on: March 18, 2017, 08:18:43 pm »
Well, at least wing tanks, wet-wings in period had a shed-load of problems as the available sealing
materials couldn't take the combination of the solvent characteristics of petrol combined with structural
flex/vibration. Bag tanks are a possibility.

Offline NARSES2

  • Nick was always on his mind - just ask the Pet Shop Boys
  • Global Moderator
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 28294
Re: Martin Baker MB5
« Reply #49 on: March 19, 2017, 06:18:33 am »
200 gal tanks would be a mistake as the size would have a very negative effect on drag.
~115-135 would make more sense as the big 165 US drop tanks were generally only used
for ferry purposes, and 200 gal tanks would be big.

So a couple of 115 gallon tanks (is that US or Imperial by the way ?) would give it a range of approximately 2,200 miles ? Or am I being simplistic ?
Decals my @r$e!

Offline kitnut617

  • That's got his tum rumbling already just by the sound of it.
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 8921
Re: Martin Baker MB5
« Reply #50 on: March 19, 2017, 06:50:53 am »
200 gal tanks would be a mistake as the size would have a very negative effect on drag.
~115-135 would make more sense as the big 165 US drop tanks were generally only used
for ferry purposes, and 200 gal tanks would be big.

So a couple of 115 gallon tanks (is that US or Imperial by the way ?) would give it a range of approximately 2,200 miles ? Or am I being simplistic ?

Yup!  what Jon says makes sense but I think I'll stick with the 200 Gal tanks on my builds. Reason is I'm re-engining my two I'm going to build.  One will have a Sabre VII or VIII engine (over 3000 hp) and the other will have a proposed version of the Centaurus. This engine would be similar to the Centaurus' planned for the Vickers Type 'C' bomber which, if I've read it correctly, would have a similar arrangement to the P-47. That is by having a supercharger and a turbocharger and also 3000+ hp range. My plan is to use the radiator duct for the turbocharger, oil cooler, intercooler and air intake with the exhaust stub/s protruding out either underneath the fuselage or out the sides and bifurcated at the rear of the duct. It would mean that the internal tankage would have to be reduced for all the plumbing to run under the tanks

Here's a few pics of the MB5 prototype I've already built with a pair of DH Hornet 200 Gal tanks hanging under the wings, they don't look too out of place ----  I've positioned them in line to where the internal tanks were so what you see is about the right place for them.







« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 07:00:48 am by kitnut617 »
If I'm not building models, I'm out riding my dirtbike

Offline Old Wombat

  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 3948
  • Armour: The Gods of War love it!
Re: Martin Baker MB5
« Reply #51 on: March 19, 2017, 07:03:56 am »
200 gal tanks would be a mistake as the size would have a very negative effect on drag.
~115-135 would make more sense as the big 165 US drop tanks were generally only used
for ferry purposes, and 200 gal tanks would be big.

So a couple of 115 gallon tanks (is that US or Imperial by the way ?) would give it a range of approximately 2,200 miles ? Or am I being simplistic ?

I'm sorry but just adding range is being simplistic. Each tank adds a weight & drag penalty which reduces the effective range by a certain amount.

That being said, so is the statement of range for an aircraft (or almost any other vehicle/vessel/craft) without stating the over-all weight, temperature, humidity, altitude, speed, wind direction, et alia ad nauseum.

As a rule of thumb I'd reduce the extra range by about 5% to get a more reasonable result.
Has a life outside of What-If & wishes it would stop interfering!

"The purpose of all War is Peace" - St. Augustine

veritas ad mortus veritas est

Offline NARSES2

  • Nick was always on his mind - just ask the Pet Shop Boys
  • Global Moderator
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 28294
Re: Martin Baker MB5
« Reply #52 on: March 19, 2017, 07:11:16 am »
Thanks Old Wombat. I thought that was the case but I thought I'd ask anyway  :thumbsup:
Decals my @r$e!

Online joncarrfarrelly

  • Bertie Bassett
  • What-IF SIG
  • Needs A Life Outside What-If
  • *****
  • Posts: 5771
Re: Martin Baker MB5
« Reply #53 on: March 20, 2017, 12:12:39 pm »
200 gal tanks would be a mistake as the size would have a very negative effect on drag.
~115-135 would make more sense as the big 165 US drop tanks were generally only used
for ferry purposes, and 200 gal tanks would be big.

So a couple of 115 gallon tanks (is that US or Imperial by the way ?) would give it a range of approximately 2,200 miles ? Or am I being simplistic ?

I'm sorry but just adding range is being simplistic. Each tank adds a weight & drag penalty which reduces the effective range by a certain amount.

That being said, so is the statement of range for an aircraft (or almost any other vehicle/vessel/craft) without stating the over-all weight, temperature, humidity, altitude, speed, wind direction, et alia ad nauseum.

As a rule of thumb I'd reduce the extra range by about 5% to get a more reasonable result.

Yep, Merrick's Halifax book has one the best examples of this as it details the range vs. weight (fuel, oil and bomb-load) tradeoffs by each variant.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2017, 06:50:41 pm by joncarrfarrelly »