• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Martin Model 316: XB-68 Tactical Bomber

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
63
With all respect , but I think the windtunnel model is not the
Convair VTOL seaplane design created by Hans Amtmann.

There's no planning botom as far as I can see...
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
108
Lark has his good reasons on this.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,183
Reaction score
808
If hydrofoils would have been used, there would have been no need
for a dedicated planing bottom, I think. Just an idea, of course ..
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,768
Reaction score
874
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
lark said:
With all respect , but I think the windtunnel model is not the
Convair VTOL seaplane design created by Hans Amtmann.
With all due respect *nobody* said it was VTOL, just that the engines swiveled up to keep them from being submerged - specifically, in this case the whole wing tilts up. And with all due respect, nobody said that this design was created by Amtmann. Convair *did* have other designers (such as Sladek and Tyson, who produced a number of other similar - and not so similar jet seaplane designs).

There's no planning botom as far as I can see...
Nor does there need to be one. Sladek's "water-based B-58" did not have one.
 

Attachments

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
108
mmmm, a definitive answer will come only when someone finds the NACA report descriìbing those tests. One ha already surfaced on a later, definitive, XB-68 configuration, and a score have on supersonic seaplanes. Today I did a cursory search using keywords like "high tail" and "delta wing" in 1955-1958 timeframe, but to no avail. Let's search.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,125
Reaction score
3,027
Hi,

I found this tunnel model by NACA,for delta wing jet bomber,they
suggested that it will be Martin XB-68,can anybody identify it ?,
and something else,the 6 picture shoes the NA F-100 in a tunnel
model,but I think it was anther aircraft !.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1956/1956%20-%201828.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1956/1956%20-%201829.html
 

Attachments

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
108
See in this same thread a few post up...
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
8,949
Reaction score
648
source is known...

US Bombers by Lloyd S. Jones
Aero Publishers Inc. 1974
pp. 226-228

key word is *provisional*
 

Attachments

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
108
Yep, the "Unbuilt US post-World War II bombers from circa 1998.. though it sported Jones' drawings.
 

CFE

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
258
Reaction score
2
I know that there was some confusion over the real XB-68 configuration. Wasn't the final design a straight-winged, slender aircraft with separate tailplanes?
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
108
It seems from the Type Description published by Scott some years ago.
 

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
63
In the same Flying Review-July 1957-mention is made
of a Douglas contender with the Martin model 302A(XB-68)

Anyone an idea about this Douglas design?
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
108
Paul, actually the Douglas contender cited in that article is none other that the B-66 Destroyer, the TAC version of the Navy Skywarrior, that was ordered as an "interim" solution to the TAC light-bomber requisite. This doesn't exclude that Douglas tendered some project of their own for the definitive plane, on par with other companies. A Lockheed entry could be Model CL-266, or a unknown Georgia Lockheed project.
 

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
63
This in interesting Sky...
These info is not mentioned in the XB-68 entry in LLoyd S. Jones book(1962)
 

nugo

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
337
Reaction score
9
Hi Skybolt!

If is and if it is possible show us pictures and drawing of Lockheed Model CL-266.
 

Jschmus

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
I like that XB-68! It cries out for a kitbash involving an F-102 and some B-58 parts.
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
108
Thanks Scott, it's a bomber, so, you know...
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
108
Paul, accoring to Knaack ("Encyclopedia of post-World War II bombers"), the competition for WS-302A run a first time in 1952 and another in 1954: to both the official contenders were Martin, Douglas and North American. Boeing submitted a project but beyond the closing time so was automatically rejected. Martin won the second competition in 1954 "on paper", so in 1957 there were no other contenders still in the table. The CL-266 so could have been an internal study not officially submitted (its timing fit with the second run). I post the relevant page.
 

Attachments

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
63
Excellent! Thanks Marco.
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,450
Reaction score
158
Thanks a lot!
 

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
63
Mayby it's me , but this concept looks different compared
with the drawings in in Scott's prototype APR issue article about...
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
22
I thought bombers were by nature strategic? Does the term "Tactical bomber" come from the fact that the USAF until the A-7 ended up being used by it, did not use the term "A" for Attack?

KJ
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,768
Reaction score
874
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
At the Glenn L. Martin Museum archive I foudn some rolled-up large format photocopies of layout drawings of the Model 302. The only way to get copies was via photography. Sadly, it seems my camera is developing a fair amount of "noise," but I was still able to get a few shots that I could stitch together.
 

Attachments

BSG-75

You can teach monkies to fly better than that!
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
You did well there ;) Tony Buttler couldn't trace any for his US secret projects book.
 

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,636
Reaction score
236
Four engined?? :eek:

It seems to have some point of contact (coincidental??) with "Luft 46" projects...
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
108
Great Scott....
To KJ, no bombers in the 50s were strategic and tactical, and light, medium and heavy. Tactical means they would have been operated by TAC. The B-66 was a medium tactical bomber, and the B-68 would have been the same. The tactical were intended for use in Europe and Korea. The type ended for good when in 1959 USAFE decided that the long range (theatre) nuclear mission of the tactical bombers would have been left to missiles (and immediately asked the MMRBM), while the conventional and short to medium range nuclear mission to GOR-183/TFX. If you think tehere were wild overlapping of missions, yes there were.
 

airrocket

Dreams To Reality
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
290
Reaction score
6
Website
RetroFlight.com
Please... any more back ground info on the 302? I see podded engines have spikes 3D symmetrical similar to Convair B-58 Hustler. Fuse intakes appear 2D (no spikes). Very strange combo? High T-tail and notched swept wings.What time period is this from?
 

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
63
Maybe a bit off side...
If the final XB-68 was the Martin model 316
than the initial Martin XB-68 deltawing design should be the model 302A
wile the 302 was the longrange interceptor maybe from 1958...?
 

RyanCrierie

Crazy Researcher
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
845
Reaction score
75
Website
www.alternatewars.com
At the Glenn L. Martin Museum archive I foudn some rolled-up large format photocopies of layout drawings of the Model 302.

Figures. I tried contacting the GLM via email about archival research, but didn't get anything back from them. :mad:
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
22
Skybolt,

To KJ, no bombers in the 50s were strategic and tactical, and light, medium and heavy. Tactical means they would have been operated by TAC. The B-66 was a medium tactical bomber, and the B-68 would have been the same. The tactical were intended for use in Europe and Korea.
Then what's the difference between a tactical-bomber and an attack plane?

If you think tehere were wild overlapping of missions, yes there were.
That I do!


Kendra Lesnick
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
108
Paul, the 302A designation refers to Weapon Systems WS-302A... it is a notorious error in the first Martin projects list published by Stan Piet (later corrected...) I too made the same mistake. ;)

KJ, the differences were less and less. Originally an attack airplane would have used guns and rockets at a rather low altitude, while light bombers would have used bombs from a medium to high altitude. With the rise in weight carrying capabilities of attack planes and fighter-bombers, the difference waned. During the mid-to-late fifties bombers were supposed to attack fixed targets removed from the front (railway nodes, large airports, harbours), while attack planes would have targeted near the front. Nuclear weapons rendered the picture still more murky: a solitary F-105 with a 100 kton tactical bomb on Kronstadt would have made little different from a B-66 in the same mission...
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,296
Reaction score
108
Stan has a lot of things to do.. and he is one.. so be patient.
 

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
63
Thanks for the correction Sky...
I have to review my info/sources ;D
 
Top