Martin P6M SEAMASTER

[The Inspector]

Just checked Plane-a-day for todays subject. They also have a short video you can watch, this weeks is the BERIEV BE-200 jet flying boat, got me to thinking we had the same basic thing over 50 years ago with the SEAMASTER. I know the airplane had some structural and airframe issues like running out of steam @ around Mach .8 and 'unusual' handling after upgrading to J-57's and bigger nacelles, but the basics were there! And watching that BE-200 was beautiful on and off the water.

Do you think the squeeze from the carrier Navy and the USAF killed off what was a pretty exciting technology, and should we have persevered on development?

[old iron]

I think as aircraft became increasingly long-ranged and there were more airstrips available in remote islands after WWII there was simply much less need for large seaplanes that were hard and expensive to keep maintained.

The Seamaster was a wonderfully interesting aircraft but the concept was already a dinosaur. That the Russians still played with the concept for another decade or more does not change this, and it is worth noting that these Russian planes - or were they more like hovercraft? - were never used operationally and as far as I know were never used in the open ocean.

[Nathan]

deleted

Last edited by Nathan on Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Forgotten Field]

My friend Stan Piet wrote the book about the P6M, and I have been able to provide a few Seamaster parts to the Martin museum that have shown up along the way. The museum has some substantial P6M parts, including a big chunk of tail which was used in destructive testing.

The P6M was the Navy's entry into nuclear device delivery, despite the design origin being related to mine-laying success in WWII. It was really outclassed by the development of ICBM's, so the nuclear mission never was going to go anywhere. Martin did a lot of interesting R&D on the airplane. The USN would have had a really capable airplane, but very limited in its capabilities.

I completely agree that we should have Seaplanes. I think the loss of amphibious capabilities really impacts search and rescue capabilities, no matter what the studies say. Things like the Albatross, the HH-3, and even the Martin Mars show their utility very handily. It is just difficult to develop market for such aircraft when you are competing against entrenched platforms.

[warbird2]

It think the U.S. should have some seaplanes in its inventory.

Based on what? Because you like them?

[The Inspector]

No, because it's really really hard to crater the Oceans.

[Mr Widgeon]

My understanding is that the USN wanted a nuclear delivery system ASAP and the advent of the nuclear powered SSN & the Polaris missile system gave them a route to a submarine based nuclear delivery system that they could deploy without upsetting the USAF's rice bowl.
In order to pay for it the decision was made to scrap the P6M program (amongst others) which the USAF considered a threat anyway.
Too bad in some ways, it was a beautiful machine and at least one should have been saved, but a large flying boat is a maint. hog and requires a large landbased contingent to keep a squadron of them flying.
The Be 200 and A-40 are also beautiful machines - looking for a job.
The 200 seems to have found a limited place as an aerial fire fighter operating from land bases like the Cl-215/415T and PBYs, but the A-40 is an orphan, no one wants an open ocean patrol seaplane, not even Mother Russia.
They've built a few trying to drum up support for sales, but I don't think they're in full squadron service in Russia either.

[tom d. friedman]

i saw the video of the russian flying boat...... triple cool!!

[mustangdriver]

I saw a part of the P6M that was saved at the martin Museum in Baltimore. I think it was a portion of the tail.

[DB2]

After he got out of the AF, my grandfather worked for Martin as a flight test engineer, and spent a couple years on the Seamaster project. He always said the logistical effort that would be required to effectively deploy it doomed it from the start...but Martin kept lobbying the Navy to keep the project going, even though they knew it would never be feasible. However, when functioning properly, he said it was quite an impressive beast.

[Nathan]

deleted

Last edited by Nathan on Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Jerry O'Neill]

Some of the Seamaster's legacy is still visible.
Harvey Point, NC, now a very secure DOD area, was originally built exclusivly for the Martn Seamaster's to operate from. I don't know if a Seamaster ever made a beaching on the ramp there, but many of the special features built for them are still visible.
Don't go poking around in a boat or aircraft to try and see it, you will be escorted out at the very least!
Jerry

BTW, I have a really neat, vintage Seamaster Tie tack!

[warbird2]

Yes I like them, I am old school. But I also see them filling a void in our military. Search and rescue is very important.

That is fine, I was just asking if that was the reason you wanted the U.S. to have seaplanes. I do find it odd that you think they would fill a void in the military that the military does not seem to think exists. We do not need seaplanes as we have other means to accomplish that misson. I have been to SERE and water survival. I know how important search and rescue is.

[old iron]

Do you think they could search and rescue for fallen blimps?

[Holedigger]

There was a study and some initial planning/engineering to make a seaplane version of the C-130, but by the time the fuselage was made watertight, strengthened and such, it was too heavy to carry any cargo...EPIC FAIL. Would have been cool though.