MB 5 Replica

It certainly wins the award for the longest under construction Reno racer though.

Maybe they don't want to finish it. That way it never has to live up to the hype! I'm sorry, I just can't see that thing doing 450 anywhere, much less on the course at Reno. I know that's a controversial statement but none the less...

I hate to say it. but both of these are all wrong. A T-6 is not meant for those kind of speeds. Its wing is too thick, and it's a 1930s design. I say restore it back to a T-6, and don't waste time on it.

As for the Martin Baker, good effort, but it's wrong. Start over and get it right, or convert it to an air racer.

Chris

I hate to say it. but both of these are all wrong. A T-6 is not meant for those kind of speeds. Its wing is too thick, and it's a 1930s design. I say restore it back to a T-6, and don't waste time on it.

As for the Martin Baker, good effort, but it's wrong. Start over and get it right, or convert it to an air racer.

Chris

I hate to say it. but both of these are all wrong. A T-6 is not meant for those kind of speeds. Its wing is too thick, and it's a 1930s design. I say restore it back to a T-6, and don't waste time on it.
Chris

I don't believe there is much T-6 wing incorporated, if any at all.

[bdk]

As for the Martin Baker, good effort, but it's wrong. Start over and get it right, or convert it to an air racer.

Kind of pushy, aren't you... Why don't you build one better?

[airnutz]

At the Wildfire website they say that the wing is an entirely custom-built
structure based on a NASA airfoil. They also say that the ONLY T-6 stuff,
are the landing-gear struts and the tailwheel. But the Wildfire site seems to
also confuse the issue of "how much T-6 is there?", in the way they tell their own story.

When one enters the site you are presented with "Latest News", where they go to pains to inform you of "how little T-6 there is". That is followed
with "History of Wildfire" and they explain the beginnings of the project and, "how much T-6 IS there".

The confusion is generated mainly in the sloppy(sorry, only my opinion)
telling of the transition from "History of Wildfire", to what brought us to
"Latest News". In "Latest", they begin with a new designer and his history,
but they never really get around to telling you about the "clean slate" and
what they scrapped....but they infer a lot of things in regards to airframe
and a custom built NASA airfoil etc.
Try again at...
http://www.wildfireairracing.com

I'm obviously not an aviation expert, but a lifelong enthusiast. There are
countless fine stories of aviation history...and I Love them!! But when a
story is being told badly...it's best not told...it only creates a bigger mess.

Hope I'm helping, sorry if I'm not! Just tell me to shut my yap, and open my ears.

ps
harvardiv, the MB5 rep. IS BUILT as an air racer...

[Randy Haskin]

harvardiv, the MB5 rep. IS BUILT as an air racer...

I don't think that's necessarily true. The airplane is physically located at Reno, and the owner is thinking of entering it in the races, but that certainly doesn't make it "built as" an air racer. I am guessing HarvardIV is thinking along the lines of Tsunami or Miss Ashley in terms of custom-built air racer, and not simply and airplane built that the owner also intends to race among other activities.

This article from '99 over at AAFO.com sheds some nice light on the subject; there are a lot of people on this board throwing stones who haven't seemed to have read up on the subject first.

http://www.aafo.com/racing/news/00/MB5_1.htm

For all the people who are critical of the project, I'll just add -- put your $$ where your mouth is. It's easy to be critical when all you have to do is look at some photos and say, "awww, that's not right." This guy has engineered and built this airplane from basically scratch, using some components from other aircraft. That is one hell of an undertaking, both financially and in terms of the effort required. Eyeball engineering is pretty tough, expecially when the airplane has to actually *fly* and not just look like the photos. It would be one thing if he were just building some kind of static display mockup, but this thing has to have weight-and-balance and aerodynamics to work with that modified P-51 wing. I'm guessing that the designer/builder probably knows something about all that which we do not, and that is the source of his design changes.

Personally, I think the thing looks ugly as sin and I agree that it doesn't quite look like the real MB-5, and I can think of a better way to use those Mustang wings (how about another Mustang!), but it's not my time and it's not my $. I hope he gets it done and I hope it ends up flying safely.

[airnutz]

My bad...Randy, I stand corrected. I posted the MB5 comment at the last minute. The MB5 replica with dual controls, long range tanks, and radios
is far from the likes of purpose-built race machines. I was inarticulately referring to the Marlins intent stated in the 1999 clipping, they..."may
race the MB5 replica at Reno between 2000-2001 PROVIDED the
necessary spares are available. Sponsorships are in the works..."

However, that statement was made 5 yrs. ago and there is no telling of
the Marlins intent, unless one knows them personally or has read a more recent comment from them.

I have read the "1999 release" numerous times, and attempted to post
it here last week...but I couldn't make it work. I'm glad you posted it
though, because THIS photo of the original MB5 is the best image(IMHO) representing the overall "character" of that ship. A longer nose and taller
larger rudder area. It is THE image I have carried in my mind since I was a kid in the 60's, of this unique aircraft.

But, I do agree...it IS the Marlins money, and it IS their toy. Let 'em be!

Now if you'll excuse me...after "spinning the wheel of punishment", the
arrow stopped on my "penance to the toy gods". I must retire to the shed
and give myself a "thrashing with a mangled Scimitar propeller for 30 mins.".

I put my money where my mouth is, because I'm rebuilding a warbird as well. Unfortunately, you can't call the MB5 replica accurate. It's a replica, but not accurate.

As for the wildfire, I'm not impressed yet... Let's see it fly, and if it does well, I'll stand corrected.

Chris