Aeromarine Projects and Prototypes

[Dynoman]

This was a patent for an Aeromarine shipborne fighter/observation type aircraft created by Paul Zimmerman of Aeromarine. The design was to have a low center of gravity for better stability on the water and during recovery on the carrier. I don't know of an Aeromarine model number, if it ever had one, or if the design was developed beyond the patent stage as a preliminary design to fulfill a military/naval requirement. The original patent was in Oct. 1921. I don't have the dimensions for the patent drawing and the wingspan was drawn in to give a better perspective of the relationship between the aircraft's structure.

 

[hesham]

Amazing find my dear Dynoman,

also Paul Zimmerman designed for this company a single seat mail carrier aircraft
of 1923.

 

[Dynoman]

The future of the airmail market in 1920 was considered to be a potential cash cow of the aviation industry after the cancellation of many military aviation contracts following World War I. Aeromarine succeeded in demonstrating aerial delivery of the mail from a seaplane and acquired Florida West Indies Airways partially due to their potentially lucrative Foreign Air Mail (FAM) contract with the US Postal Service to deliver air mail to Cuba (i.e. the first foreign air mail contract in US history). As the routes and lighted airway were just getting started and night airmail delivery a possibility Aeromarine responded with their AM-1, AM-2, and AM-3 aircraft.

AM-2 Night Mail aircraft from Aerofiles. Note the 240,000 beam candle power light on both sides of the lower wing beneath the strut for night landings.

 

[Dynoman]

Another interesting Aeromarine mail aircraft was the Aeromarine modified DH-4B nicknamed the Pregnant Cow. The aircraft was modified in 1919 by Aeromarine to carry 1,000 pounds of mail.

 

[Dynoman]

Don't forget the Aeromarine Polar Bear! Planned trip to the Arctic Circle that was supposed to take place in the Spring of 1923, but may not have occurred.

 

[Dynoman]

Aeromarine WM aircraft...which is the variable-camber wing equipped DH-4B is believed to be the same DH-4B Pregnant Cow aircraft modified and demonstrated to the Postal Service. Here is the test results for the aircraft with different wings. The inflight variable camber system was supposed to shift from an AS 2 (on takeoff and landing) to and AS 7 (for cruise) wing airfoil (from Skyways 47).

 

[Dynoman]

Before the Aeromarine Plane and Motor Company 'merged' the Florida West Indies Airways (FWIA) with their own Aeromarine Navigation and Sightseeing Co. (Aeromarine's charter flight operation) the FWIA's was operating supposed decommissioned Felixstowe F5-L aircraft from Key West (Boca Chica) to Cuba. The FWIA founder and general manager, Geoffrey Bonnell (WWI ace) had obtained a crated USN F5-L to modify for passenger service. The drawing below is of the FWIA F5-L passenger seaplane design. The aircraft was not modified and the FWIA quickly ran out of money providing limited air operations to the public. They did however, successfully lobby the US Post Office to obtain the first foreign air mail contract. FWIA's money problems persisted and they were in danger of not meeting the deadline by the P.O. to have their aircraft ready for air mail carriage. Somehow, Aeromarine learns of their trouble and steps in to save FWIA. The new outfit becomes Aeromarine West Indies Airway and Bonnell becomes the airline's general manager.

 

[Dynoman]

Aeromarine West Indies Airways Cuba-Key West service! Notice damage to the wing?! IDK the story behind that, but I'll do some research.

 

[Stargazer]

Great pics but too much confusion here!! As you well know the Model 75 (itself a reworked Curtiss F-5L) was absolutely NOT a project but a production type which saw service as one of the earliest and most successful U.S. airliner. As a matter of fact, we already have a topic for all the Model 75 variants, including the Polar Bear, so all these really belong there! To make matters worse, a moderator mistakenly merged the "Havana - Porto Rico" thread with this one (instead of the Model 75 topic, as I'd suggested).

I hope all this confusion can be cleared: on the one hand, a topic on a production type, the Model 75 (Aerospace section), and on the other, the topic on projects.

 

[Dynoman]

Model of Aeromarine Type XII Bomber from Skyways Journal No. 50 April 1999.

 

[hesham]

frankly I don't know,but I will check,also Aeromarine had a little know aircraft called
Twin-Hydro,clearly it was a seaplane.

Anther Info in my files;

This Twin-Hydro ordered during WW1,and later cancelled,maybe a project only ?.

 

[Stargazer]

Aeromarine had a little know aircraft called Twin-Hydro,clearly it was a seaplane.

This Twin-Hydro ordered during WW1,and later cancelled,maybe a project only ?.

Quite possibly the same as the Model 700 seaplane, 5 of which were ordered by the U.S. Navy circa 1917 (BuAer Nos. A-142-146, with the last two canceled).
It was a twin torpedo seaplane powered by a 90hp Aeromarine 6 engine.
Another set of three Aeromarine seaplanes was also ordered and delivered as A-439 to 441, model not specified. Most likely Model 700 types too.

 

[Stargazer]

the Aeromarine LDB was Army Bomber aircraft of 1923,two designs but was never built,and remained a projects.

The designation "Model L.D.B." is said to correspond to the Army Type XII and Type XIII projects. However I have my doubts since the acronym most likely means "Long Distance Bomber" — which the Type XIII certainly was but not the Type XII (this was short-range).

 

[Dynoman]

Hesham...Jos Heyman's listing of US Military Aircraft- Undesignated Aircraft" lists an Aeromarine Twin Hydroplane with this unreferenced info:

"Aeromarine Twin Hydro
Specifications:
span:
length:
engines:
max. speed:
Sixteen examples of the Twin Hydro seaplane were ordered by the US Army with serials 412/427 on 9 December 1916 but
were subsequently cancelled on 19 December 1917. "

I'll keep searching...maybe we can find some information on the attempted acquisition or design.

 

[Stargazer]

Plans for a 26 passenger seaplane that would have doubled the airlines largest passenger load. I do not have any three views or additional information outside of the newspaper article.
It appears that the aircraft was completely conceptual as the airline shut down later the same year as the article date (April 19, 1923).

Unknown Aeromarine Land Plane- Passenger and Cargo aircraft from Skyways Magazine article of Ted Koch, April 1999. Does anyone have additional information on the design? I have not found a model number or description among the Aeromarine aircraft available on this site, others, or in the literature. This aircraft in the Skyways article was referred to as a proposed passenger aircraft.

I certainly wonder if these two might not be one and the same project. If the seating arrangement was by rows of three seats as in the Model 75 series, then the number of windows is compatible with this.

 

[Dynoman]

Skyblazer...that's the first thing I thought when I first saw the landplane! However, both the interior drawing and the document (first page is shown on this thread in Reply 5) were from the Smithsonian and both were identified as the Porto-Rico airliner, with the textual document stating that it is "carrying a load of ten passengers, pilot and mechanic." The rest of the document (which was too big to post) describes a modified F5L.

 

[Dynoman]

There is also confusion on the LDB designation. I don't think there was a LDB designation, but rather "DB" for day bomber and "LB" for light bomber. I think somewhere the two designations were merged to form an unofficial LDB, possibly meaning Light Day Bomber. Here's a listing of USAAC aircraft procured that had these designations and a discussion of the DB and LB classifications.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_US_designations_bombers.html

 

[Stargazer]

Skyblazer...that's the first thing I thought when I first saw the landplane! However, both the interior drawing and the document (first page is shown on this thread in Reply 5) were from the Smithsonian and both were identified as the Porto-Rico airliner, with the textual document stating that it is "carrying a load of ten passengers, pilot and mechanic." The rest of the document (which was too big to post) describes a modified F5L.

I didn't say that the photo was of the landplane (which we both know wasn't built) but that the seating arrangement by of that proposed airliner may have been the same! (rows of three)

 

[hesham]

Hesham...Jos Heyman's listing of US Military Aircraft- Undesignated Aircraft" lists an Aeromarine Twin Hydroplane with this unreferenced info:

"Aeromarine Twin Hydro
Specifications:
span:
length:
engines:
max. speed:
Sixteen examples of the Twin Hydro seaplane were ordered by the US Army with serials 412/427 on 9 December 1916 but
were subsequently cancelled on 19 December 1917. "

I'll keep searching...maybe we can find some information on the attempted acquisition or design.

Yes It's,Dynoman,

and for my dear Skyblazer,I think you are right about LDB.

 

[iverson]

Model of Aeromarine Type XII Bomber from Skyways Journal No. 50 April 1999.

I've attached a JPEG of an Aeromarine drawing of the model 12 that I have enlarged and cleaned up.

 

[Grey Havoc]

the Aeromarine LDB was Army Bomber aircraft of 1923,two designs but was never built,and remained a projects.

The designation "Model L.D.B." is said to correspond to the Army Type XII and Type XIII projects. However I have my doubts since the acronym most likely means "Long Distance Bomber" — which the Type XIII certainly was but not the Type XII (this was short-range).

'Light Day Bomber', perhaps?

 

[hesham]

But I think the LDB and Type-XII & Type-XIII are different,please see;

http://www.aerofiles.com/_aeromar.html

 

[Stargazer]

But I think the LDB and Type-XII & Type-XIII are different

Well, yeah! One was a short-distance bomber, the other one a long-distance one. One was a conventional biplane, the other one had a sort of lifting body type wing.

 

[memaerobilia]

Noted early fllying boat designer (for Aeromarine) and later, Cheif designer and initial partner in starting EDO corporation,)
here is part of a lengthy and highly detailed report on The Proposed Design of the Type XII Short Distance Night Bombardment airplane, by Boris von Korvin Kroukovsky.

 

[memaerobilia]

Type XII Calculated performance:

 

[Dynoman]

Memaerobilia...excellent information!! Do you have information on the LDB designation? Since the bomber was described as a short distance bomber (as appearing in the cover page) maybe Aeromarine had a description of the LDB that could clear up the acronym.

Also, here is a sweet little video of the Aeromarine Model 52 and the Model 75 in Aeromarine West Indies livery flying to Cuba (exterior and interior forward cabin).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru7ysWvQ2yA

 

[hesham]

Type XII Calculated performance:

Nice find Memaerobilia.

 

[Stargazer]

AM-2 Night Mail aircraft from Aerofiles. Note the 240,000 beam candle power light on both sides of the lower wing beneath the strut for night landings.

Yet another case of Aerofiles mislabeling a photo (too many instances for my liking). This being said, several books continue to misidentify the AM series, to the extent that I all the so-called "AM-2" photos I have seen are in fact of the AM-1!

The radiator above the wing is typical of the AM-1.
The AM-2 had the radiator below the fuselage, while the AM-3 had it under the engine in the manner of the DH-4.

 

[Dynoman]

After reading various articles on the Aeromarine EO, the Aeromarine 44, and the EDO Turtle, I'm beginning to think that the Aeromarine Sea Messenger was a single-seat military derivative of the Aeromarine EO.

Other two seat seaplanes of Curtiss and Aeromarine had trouble being trimmed for lateral roll control when only one person was in the aircraft. The single seat variant of the Sea Messenger would eliminate that.

Here's a comparison of the two: Sea Messenger and Aeromarine EO.

 

[Stargazer]

After reading various articles on the Aeromarine EO, the Aeromarine 44, and the EDO Turtle, I'm beginning to think that the Aeromarine Sea Messenger was a single-seat military derivative of the Aeromarine EO.

Thanks, Dynoman. I, too, have pondered over the resemblance of these two designs, which both came out in 1924. The A.S.M. is described as Aeromarine's last design (before the departure of Earl D. Osborne and the company's shift of activity to producing Klemm trainer derivatives), while the E.O. was its last produced aircraft, the second of two produced becoming the Edo Model B (also known as the Turtle). I do not know what the EDO Model A might have been, but who knows? Perhaps it was the A.S.M. design?

On a different note, if you have any info on the Models 43-L and 44-L, I'm all ears... ;-)

 

[Dynoman]

The Model 44 has the exact same overall dimensions as the Model 40. What I have is:

Model 44U (U- for the U-6 engine and L-of course designates the Liberty powered variant):
Length: 20ft 11 1/2in
Height: 12ft 7in
Wing span: 48ft 6in
Props:1
Blades: 2 (8ft 2in dia)

The first EDO aircraft that flew I think was the Malolo in 1925-27...I'll post something on this next.

 

[Stargazer]

Model 44U (U- for the U-6 engine and L-of course designates the Liberty powered variant)

Not at all!! The "L" suffix in Aeromarine types indicated the Aeromarine Models L-6 and L-8 engines (L-6-D and L-8-D: direct drive variants; L-6-G and L-8-G: geared variants). The L-6 and U-6 were 6-cylinder engines, while the L-8 and U-8 were 8-cylinder ones. The U- types were " later and improved designs of the L-6 and L-8 engines."

The first EDO aircraft that flew I think was the Malolo in 1925-27...I'll post something on this next.

Not so. The Model B flew circa 1924. Then came in 1925 two examples of an unidentified high-wing monoplane flying boat designed by B. V. Korvin-Kroukovsky (possibly the Model A, and/or perhaps modified from the E.O. design). Only in 1927 did the single Malolo appear, in three successive configurations.

 

[Dynoman]

Great info!...I was thinking of the F5L's with the "L" standing for Liberty, however I should of thought of the other Aeromarine engine designations.

Edo Malolo was designed in 1925 and flew around 1927. I'm not familiar with the other early EDO designs (i.e. Model "A" and "B"). There is someone on this site that has some of Korvin-Kroukovsky's drawings...maybe he can add some light to these designs.

 

[memaerobilia]

The 2 engine Edo "Malolo" is labeled as Edo Model B and the BVKK/EDO Corporation, drawing was dated Dec. 1925. I have not seen the single engine (better known!) Malolo dwg, and can only "assume it was Edo Model "A" with nothing else to go on, here.

I sold the box of BVKK dwgs with lots of hand-drawings on legal paper (those were for both large military planes, and smaller pursuit seaplanes and planes for Aeromarine,) as well as formal crisp original Blueprints from the 1920s.of BOTH EDO and Aeromarine original dwgs, to an avid Edo historian, a Mr. Patterini. At the time, he said, with all his years of research, he had never heard of a two engine Malolo!

Two unfortunate, related stories.
AFTER I had sold the two foot high pile of BVKK's personal archives, I soon AFTER!!!!, found a local shop that could have/would have made full-size clear blueprint copies, for between ONLY $2.50 and $7.50 EACH!, and would have had a set of copies made, had I known.. All these original dwgs and letters had been found in BVKK's long-abandoned cabin, in the remote mountain woods in Vermont, long after he died. I have no idea of how much had already been scavenged and sold elsewhere, before I bought what was left of an ongoing sale, of BVKK's personal archives, on Ebay, years ago.

There was also a number of interesting seaplane and pursuit amphibians from the 1920s, credited to a C. H. Powell in with BVKK's papers, along with numerous leters between them contracting BVKK to work with Powell on an amphibian design with twin floats. and a 1927 BVKK 3-view vblueprint of a twin float amphibian designed by BVKK for Edo. only listed as"experimental."etc . Other blueprints for his interesting version of amphibious landing gear with combined float and wheel and folding landing gear..

The buyer, who had done some admirable work (two articles in Skyways Magazine )on Edo history, had lost much of his sight, by the time he was able to buy these, and has been unable to do further historical research and recording, with them. I do not believe he wishes to correspond with anyone,and cannot use computer, emails or read letters, without difficulty etc.I have phoned him for a few favors from the papers info. He has been kind enough to help, so long as it is something that is very easy for him to handle.

He would be 94 years old in 2015?

 

[Stargazer]

The 2 engine Edo "Malolo" is labeled as Edo Model B and the BVKK/EDO Corporation, drawing was dated Dec. 1925. I have not seen the single engine (better known!) Malolo dwg, and can only "assume it was Edo Model "A" with nothing else to go on, here.

I sold the box of BVKK dwgs with lots of hand-drawings on legal paper (those were for both large military planes, and smaller pursuit seaplanes and planes for Aeromarine,) as well as formal crisp original Blueprints from the 1920s.of BOTH EDO and Aeromarine original dwgs, to an avid Edo historian, a Mr. Patterini. At the time, he said, with all his years of research, he had never heard of a two engine Malolo!

Two unfortunate, related stories.
AFTER I had sold the two foot high pile of BVKK's personal archives, I soon AFTER!!!!, found a local shop that could have/would have made full-size clear blueprint copies, for between ONLY $2.50 and $7.50 EACH!, and would have had a set of copies made, had I known.. All these original dwgs and letters had been found in BVKK's long-abandoned cabin, in the remote mountain woods in Vermont, long after he died. I have no idea of how much had already been scavenged and sold elsewhere, before I bought what was left of an ongoing sale, of BVKK's personal archives, on Ebay, years ago.

There was also a number of interesting seaplane and pursuit amphibians from the 1920s, credited to a C. H. Powell in with BVKK's papers, along with numerous leters between them contracting BVKK to work with Powell on an amphibian design with twin floats. and a 1927 BVKK 3-view vblueprint of a twin float amphibian designed by BVKK for Edo. only listed as"experimental."etc . Other blueprints for his interesting version of amphibious landing gear with combined float and wheel and folding landing gear..

The buyer, who had done some admirable work (two articles in Skyways Magazine )on Edo history, had lost much of his sight, by the time he was able to buy these, and has been unable to do further historical research and recording, with them. I do not believe he wishes to correspond with anyone,and cannot use computer, emails or read letters, without difficulty etc.I have phoned him for a few favors from the papers info. He has been kind enough to help, so long as it is something that is very easy for him to handle.

He would be 94 years old in 2015?

GOSH!!! Fascinating account. Hope all his archives will not be lost and they can land in another historian's collection where they will be put to good use.

I wasn't sure that the Malolo and the Model B were one and the same type, although of course their description is nearly identical (four-seat high-wing monoplane flying boat with 75hp Anzani engine). Of course it makes sense, especially since the company blueprints sported the B- prefix.

It would seem that only three Aeromarine E.O. types were built. They were registered as #32 (c/n "G-1"), #784 (c/n 10068) and #1791 (c/n #1).
According to my research, #32 and #784 became Edo types (unspecified designation, perhaps Model A?) while #1791 is said to have become the Model B.
What seems like a fourth aircraft #598, appearing on registers as just an "Edo Flying Boat", is the one that was called Malolo (Flying Fish). The fact that it has exactly the same constructor's number "G-1" as the first E.O. suggests it may simply be one and the same airframe that was reworked and re-registered.

I have a problem though with the designer: I have the undesignated aircraft designed by Boris V. Korvin-Kroukovsky; however, the Aeromarine Model EO (from which it was modified) was designed by Earl D. Osborne! Was it a joint design? Or did BVKK rework Osborne's original design?

 

[Dynoman]

Here's a drawing from Jone's collection of the single-engine Malolo.

 

[Stargazer]

A photo of the Malolo. I know it's an Edo type, and therefore slightly off-topic, but since this derived from the Aeromarine E.O. it's interesting to compare them:

 

[Dynoman]

Any information on the Aeromarine SBG-1 Glider? It was issued the registration number of NC84V (no issue date) and there appears to have been only one aircraft/prototype. NC registration numbers began being issued around 1927, and a low number could mean that it was issued early in the process, which would possibly put the SBG-1 in development at the same time Aeromarine-Klemm came into existence. I'm curious if Klemm had a hand in the SBG-1. Klemm designed and built gliders in Germany and it may be possible that a Klemm glider was being offered in the US under the SBG-1 designation. Any info?

 

[hesham]

Any information on the Aeromarine SBG-1 Glider? It was issued the registration number of NC84V (no issue date) and there appears to have been only one aircraft/prototype. NC registration numbers began being issued around 1927, and a low number could mean that it was issued early in the process, which would possibly put the SBG-1 in development at the same time Aeromarine-Klemm came into existence. I'm curious if Klemm had a hand in the SBG-1. Klemm designed and built gliders in Germany and it may be possible that a Klemm glider was being offered in the US under the SBG-1 designation. Any info?

Hi Dynoman,

I never heard about this glider before,but I will search about any Info about it.

 

[Stargazer]

Any information on the Aeromarine SBG-1 Glider? It was issued the registration number of NC84V (no issue date) and there appears to have been only one aircraft/prototype. NC registration numbers began being issued around 1927, and a low number could mean that it was issued early in the process, which would possibly put the SBG-1 in development at the same time Aeromarine-Klemm came into existence.

Actually a registration such as #84V is not the same at all as plain #84. The first E.O. received #32, indicating the 32nd registration in the 1927 system (but not the first Aeromarine to be registered, since one Model 39-B had the illustrious honor of becoming the first aircraft to receive a civil registration — as N-ABIA — in the short-lived international-type letter system). Obviously the 1927 system applied not just to brand new aircraft, but also to all previous aircraft that were still flown, hence the #32 for a 1924 type.

I believe the registrations ending with the "V" suffix appeared at a time when regular numbers had reached 9999 and the Federal authorities weren't keen on having five-digit numbers. Registrations ending in "W", "Y", "K", "E", "H" and "M" followed suit (not necessarily in that order).

To accurately date the #84V registration, one has to take a look at the ones immediately before and after. Many of the first 83 "V" registrations were allocated to Sikorsky's Amphibions, the S-38, S-41 and S-39 (1928-1930 types). One can also find the Grumman GG-1, a Fairchild 22-C7B, a Huntington Governor (1931), some Bourdon B-4 Kitty Hawks (1930), two Gee Bee E Sportsters (1930), the Gee Bee X (1930) and a Gee Bee Z (1931), a series of Model 7, 8 and 9 Fleets (1930-31), a Bellanca F, two Whittelsey Avians (1929-30) or two General 102 Aristocrats (1928-30).

I believe you're getting the picture by now: the SBG-1 glider was most likely a 1930 type. This very date makes it obvious to me that the SBG-1 was yet another one of the many primary glider types that were developed in the US during 1929-1931, inspired by the German steel truss type design that was extremely popular as it provided a cheap way to fly. There doesn't seem to have been any attempt to market or even publicize this prototype, which I've never seen listed in any of the publications of the time.

Now there remains a slightly puzzling element: the fact that it is simply called an "Aeromarine", not "Aeromarine-Klemm" type, despite the fact that the company's name in 1930 normally included the Klemm name. However, a look at the civil register at the time shows a certain lack of coherence here, as the AKL- trainer series were sometimes listed as "Aeromarine-Klemm" types, but sometimes also just as plain "Aeromarine". The company's logo itself was ambiguous in this respect, with "Aeromarine-Klemm" in the text area but only "Aeromarine" in the image...