WesWorld

Hmm, never weres huh? Do you have the Miles M.20?

Show some ambition man ask for the MB-3

I only ask because my own Spartan SP-20 is based on the Miles M-20, but if you want to cough up the MB-3 stats....

No probs if you want them (got most propellerfighter stats)

I dont but i might and thats a big might be able to sim it, I scratch build most of them but im not afraid to try somthing new (or ask the other guys I trade planes with if they have it)

Excellent

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin
I only ask because my own Spartan SP-20 is based on the Miles M-20, but if you want to cough up the MB-3 stats....

Martin Baker M.B.3
Engine: 24 cyl Napier Sabre II, Horizontal H type, 2020 Hp
Max speed 415mph (668 km/h) at 20,000ft
Intial climb 4,350ft/min
Range 1100mls @250mph
Loaded weight 11,497 lbs
Empty Weight: 9,233lbs
Span 35ft
Length 35ft 4in
height 15ft 6 3/4 in
Wingarea 262.64 sq.ft
Armament 6x 20mm AC

Miles M.20
Engine RR Merlin XX, 1300Hp
Max speed 333mph @ 20,600ft
intitial climb 3200ft/min
Normal range 550mls
Empty weight 5,870lbs
Loaded weight 7,758lbs
Span 34ft 7in
length 30ft 1in
height 12ft 6in
Wing area 234 sq.ft
Armament 8-12 .303 MG

Thanks, though I was refering to the X-plane version of the M.20 the stats on the MB-3 are greatly apreciated.

I think I have a picture somewhere of the MB-3.

The MB-3 and MB-5 are very handsome aircraft







M.B.5

Sweeet pics! The MB-3 could pass for a Spartan design given the simularity's in esthetics when compaired to the Miles M-20/Spartan SP-20.

One thing that the MB.2 lacked was esthetics...

I guess training makes perfect

your miles is crashing atm... aka its on auto test, traded my whirlwind for her ^.^

Real one or Spartan?

the real one, or as close to it as im capable of geting (that landing gear is a bitch to make)

The picture I got in your PM was quite good, though now I understand why the landing gear looked off somewhat.

ya I gave up and comprimised, the gear is just to damn hard to model (I actualy like the gear i did end up using)

Martin-Baker 3 pictures from Sir James Martin's Biography.

The MB.2 and MB.3 were both awful planes with totally inadequate stability and control. The MB.5 was similar until after 2 years of modifications. The test reports and reviews are from 1946 when it was flying well.

Here is a quote from the early trials in 1944;

"Greensted[test pilot] however remembered very clearly his first flight in the MB5, and he recalled ; "Right from the very beginning I suppose you could say that it was a badly designed aircraft because it didn't work in the sense that it was directionally unstable. It was an absolute swine to fly because it wouldn't keep itself straight."..."I still don't understand why the thing wasn't right when I first flew it. After all, the theory of design of aircraft at that stage was pretty advanced and I don't understand how he could make a mistake about the directional stability..."

Martin didn't design aircraft very well because he had no training in the field. In modifications like the 12-gun nose, flat feed for the 20mm cannon and ejector seats, he was excellent, but not for aircraft.

Well there is a reason they failed to enter service but MB-3 & 5 are good looking.