AM-1 status?

george · **Joined:** Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:20 pm **Posts:** 435

A certain Martin Mauler is no longer listed on its museums' aircraft inventory.

A. Is this just an oversight by the museum?

B. Could it have been traded or sold to someone who will restore it to airworthy?

Mike · **Joined:** Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am **Posts:** 3331

Are we allowed to know which one is being talked about, or is it only permitted for those 'in the know' to talk in code?

quemerford · **Joined:** Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:19 pm **Posts:** 1596

'Code' can be annoying, but in some cases it's a good way of not jeopardising something, but asking a question nevertheless to put a toe in the water.

A quick search would suggest one of these three:

BuAer 22260 - Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum Middle River, MD
BuAer 22275 - Erickson Aircraft Collection Madras, OR
BuAer 122403 - PoF Chino CA

My hunch is probably one of the first two.

Taylor Stevenson · **Posted:** Fri Jul 24, 2015 9:26 am

Mike wrote:

Are we allowed to know which one is being talked about, or is it only permitted for those 'in the know' to talk in code?

SaxMan · **Posted:** Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:28 am

To the best of my knowledge, I don't recall seeing the Mauler listed on the website inventory even after they acquired it. I guess because it is not on public display, they do not list it?

It's doubtful that the plane would, or even could, be transferred to private party. I can't see the Navy allowing such a transaction to proceed.

Badman · **Joined:** Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:05 pm **Posts:** 69

Wasn't Jimmy Leeward restoring one to fly in Florida at one time?

george · **Joined:** Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:20 pm **Posts:** 435

Col. and Sax - Remember that Gary and Brad have said that the Baltimore Mauler(s) won't be allowed to fly again. As far as I remember, they were never listed on the museums' website. As I understand it, they are now just a bunch of parts sitting out in the salt air rusting away. Very sad ending, especially when you remember that Mable was flying in the mid-1980s.

Bad - You may be thinking of the Grumman AF-2S, which was and still may be airworthy. I asked about its status on WIX a while back, but got no response. Would love to see that big Guardian in the air again. Maybe Lewis Wardbirds or Texas Legends would be interested in it?

Quemerford - Your first sentence explains "certain" correctly.

Badman · **Joined:** Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:05 pm **Posts:** 69

george wrote:

Col. and Sax - Remember that Gary and Brad have said that the Baltimore Mauler(s) won't be allowed to fly again. As far as I remember, they were never listed on the museums' website. As I understand it, they are now just a bunch of parts sitting out in the salt air rusting away. Very sad ending, especially when you remember that Mable was flying in the mid-1980s.

Bad - You may be thinking of the Grumman AF-2S, which was and still may be airworthy. I asked about its status on WIX a while back, but got no response. Would love to see that big Guardian in the air again. Maybe Lewis Wardbirds or Texas Legends would be interested in it?

Quemerford - Your first sentence explains "certain" correctly.

Yeah - you're right. I guess I had a brain fart there. It would be nice to know the status on the Leeward Guardian.

quemerford · **Joined:** Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:19 pm **Posts:** 1596

george wrote:

Col. and Sax - Remember that Gary and Brad have said that the Baltimore Mauler(s) won't be allowed to fly again. As far as I remember, they were never listed on the museums' website. As I understand it, they are now just a bunch of parts sitting out in the salt air rusting away. Very sad ending, especially when you remember that Mable was flying in the mid-1980s.

Bad - You may be thinking of the Grumman AF-2S, which was and still may be airworthy. I asked about its status on WIX a while back, but got no response. Would love to see that big Guardian in the air again. Maybe Lewis Wardbirds or Texas Legends would be interested in it?

Quemerford - Your first sentence explains "certain" correctly.

Although I realise I should have put not jeopardising: too many negatives but hopefully you got what I meant!

george · **Joined:** Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:20 pm **Posts:** 435

I knew what you meant, Quem, but you could edit it if you'd like and add the "not".

Warbird Information Exchange

AM-1 status?

Who is online