I expected that sort of dismissal. As it happens, the consensus of those who experienced the MB% was that it was a better aircraft. A good flyer, easy to maintain, the cockpit layout praised for its utility, and whether you like it or not, the performance was excellent for the time.
"In my opinion this is an outstanding aircraft, particularly when regarded in the light of the fact that it made its maiden flight as early as 23rd May 1944"-
Test pilot Capt. Eric Brown, 1948
It was quite possible with a speedy decision for the MB5 to have reached operational use at the closing stages of the war. It would have been a worthwhile export product as well. A
technological dead end? That's not really the case, because the technology was till developing at that stage of aviation history, but regards the point made about jets - there was no decision made at the end of WW2 to build jets in favour of piston aircraft, and for that matter, the Air Ministry weren't so daft to put all their eggs in one untried basket. As it happens, only two fighter designs were approaching operational use in limited numbers (Gloster Meteor and De Havilland Vampire) for the RAF and the emphasis on jet technology demonstrated by the Third Reich (who were chasing war winning solutions) was not replicated by any of the Allies. But then, German jet engines were crude and unreliable. They needed overhauls every ten hours of use and needed replacement every twenty five hours. American engines were underdeveloped and unimpressive (although an abortive project by Lockheed in the late thirties would have gained them first place had they persisted). British engines had gone through many more development cycles and had the highest quality, albeit used in service later than the German products.
Politics is part of social behaviour at its roots. Boeing, as I recall, were the last major manufacturer to sign up, being somewhat wary of such oversight, but the reality was that the system ensured optimal production levels at all factories involved. Not for nothing was the American economy boosted by WW2.
Yeah but what other pistion engine fighter was developed at that late period in the war. To be a BETTER aircraft it has to be a better aircraft that an aircraft accepted into production from a siimilar stage and that aircraft to compare it against was what? The war was not going to last forever and those planning production knew it. Changing production introducing new designs takes resources, inevitably cost in type sin production right now.
There's a saying in computing papar is fatser than silicon. the MB5 was later development it should have been beter than aircraft in production. In the late war context a maybe somewhat better piston engine fighter it;s very argubale that it was not a good investiment of resources.
You have a handful and amntedoctal claims form a very small number of people. It's hardly definitive evidence.
Have you got the actual testing report? Or Why the it was not put into production?
The project might have faltered bcause James Martin was not good a finishing things quickly.,
"The trouble was that James Martin, the aircraft's sole designer, was a perfectionist, and the MB5's design and construction became a protracted process."
Or the design may have had flaws which meant pushing it into production before they were fixed was a bad call.,
"In fact, the MB5 made its maiden flight long before that, at RAF Harwell on May 23, 1944. The pilot, Bryan Greensted, Chief Test Pilot for airscrew manufacturer Rotol, found it directionally unstable, and it was not flown again until several months of lamentably slow work on the rear fuselage and tail services had remedied this."
History of the Martin-Baker MB5 Airplane
I use words like MIGHT and MAY because it is sketchy evidence. Do you really think the evdidence about this aircraft have is so clear cut and definative?
and what is the clear cut evidence that "a superior fighter was never put into production for no other reason than the manufacturer wasn't a big name in the business" to make your argument you have to show it was not only clealry superoir but the SOLE reaosn it was not put into procution immeidtely was the Martin Baker was not a big name in buisness.