Hi CAPFlyer,
I think we are more in agreement than you may realise -
CAPFlyer wrote:
You may, but then again, this thread is about the "greatest airplanes that never were" in each person's opinion, so the whole premise is to be considering the theoretical, not the actual, thus my points on the B-70 program.
Yes, fair enough. But you did (IMHO) imply that SSTs relied on the XB-70 - Boeing might have done, and the Concorde team (AFAIK) didn't. It would be interesting to know, if there was any passing on of XB-70 data. It's not impossible.
CAPFlyer wrote:
I did misspeak on the MB.5, I was thinking of the MB.3, but the basis of the design was sound.
I was certainly thrown by the statement!
Not to worry, it lead to an interesting discussion.
CAPFlyer wrote:
For whatever reason, none of the MB series was ever given a production go-ahead despite advantages over other types already in production. Why that happened, no one will ever really know, but the MB.5 was the ultimate expression of that line and had the best performance.
I still fail to see any mystery or 'no one will ever know'. I agree there's points that are probabilities, not certainties, but it's pretty straightforward, surely?
1. MB-3 comes out of leftfield - interesting and, for the time, unconventional - arguably radical aircraft. Company that bring it to fruition are unknown, no track record. They do hit all the right buttons, but the Air Min are v.v. conservative.
2. Prototype crashes, kills one of the two key men in the company. Loss of Capt Valentine Baker and the prototype puts programme back years (in 1942 - now looking at 1943+). Amazingly, Martin Baker continue, and regroup. Decide to 'improve' design, resulting in new fuselage, name, MB-5, and ff in 1944. By then, 'new' fighters are simply not needed, unless they show a significant improvement over existing which are doing the job (a whole new type of engine's different - must be considered.) If the MB-5 had come from a major maker (Vickers A / Supermarine, Gloster, Hawker) then the Air Min might've considered production, as they were a known quantity; however MB weren't, and the aircraft's signal changes in construction (resulting in its advantages in serviceability) mitigated against production by another existing company.
If the MB-3 hadn't crashed and killed a company founder, then it could've been too good to ignore, then. But once that crash happened, what followed was inevitable IMHO, in that any alternative scenario doesn't stand scrutiny. And if the MB-3 had entered service, the MB-5 as we know it probably wouldn't have come about - but that's very speculative...
CAPFlyer wrote:
Also, I think most would agree that the "superiority" of jets was in question until the late 1940s or early 1950s. If they weren't, then the Meteor would have replaced all piston-powered types in service immediately after WWII and the P-80 would have replaced all of the US piston fighters. That didn't occur because there were still doubts of how effective jets could be. Many still felt that the increased speeds would make it difficult if not impossible to fight effectively against other aircraft due to the high closeure speeds and the infancy of fighter-based radar other than basic ranging systems.
Far be it for me to defend the history of the early jets; what I was reporting was what I understood to be the accepted history.
A couple of postulates I won't take on board though; 1. Where did the single (jet) fighter idea come from? Other aircraft would be required, as indeed they were. The RAF didn't put all it's eggs in the Meteor basket; there was the Spider Crab and Glosters other developments. No single fighter type will do all jobs; however the MB-5 would (only) be a good deal better at the job the Tempest and P-51D are already doing more than adequately - just not a top need - 'overkill' being a modern term. The jet was a whole new approach.
2. The high closure speeds - ah, yes, that one came up in 1920, the 1930s and the 1950s and 1960s... 'some' have always believed that, others not. While the MB-5 was a very interesting idea, and would be better than anything existing, it's performance growth potential could be estimated. The new jets, while strange, operating in odd ways, had an
unknown potential; and we knew that the Germans had them too, ergo they were more vital to develop than another very good piston fighter. By 1944 the jet couldn't be ignored; my understanding was that both the British and Germans realised (with hindsight) that they could've been a lot further down the track with effective jets; for various reasons, they'd lost time, and were both aware they were in a new type arms-race.
I'd love to see a 'real' MB-5, and even an MB-3, as I agree, fascinating, aircraft - the MB-5 of unarguable greatness, but it's not to be.
All interesting, and yes, the XB-70s mighty impressive. Got to be the world's largest paper-planealike, too!
Regards,
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
What? The Typhoon first flew in 1940 - albeit being problem plagued, while: