Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,047
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Believing the civilian Seamaster to be a airliner was an error on my part. Wikipedia only speaks generically about adapting the aircraft for the civilian market which I presumed meant cargo and passenger configurations of the SeaMaster design.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,688
Reaction score
7,999
Abraham Gubler said:
Its pointless posts like this that are ruining this board.

Stargazer2006 said:
I surely wasn't aware that this board was "wasted", until you mentioned it. Sharing an opinion is never a "waste" when there is no attempt to push it and when it is not offensive. This is not an intranet board for professional, this is an internet forum (mind the Latin meaning of that word) where non-professional enthusiasts, some "enlightened", some not, can come and discuss the aircraft they like, not necessarily with the notion that every word they type has got to be 100% useful, relevant and serious, and certainly not on the basis that it will be scrutinized from a professional's point of view.

The purpose of this forum is not to "discuss aircraft [you] like". Perhaps a closer inspection of the rules might help here. Everyone who contributes to the forum is of course valuable. In the end, though, its *my* forum, and the forum of that tiny number of members who actually donate to the costs of hosting. Without me, and them, you'd have no forum here to post in.

I have received a complaint from a forum member and donator who has been a valued contributor who feels some of the newer members are spoiling a good board, with pointless comments in such quantity as to drown out the useful information, as well as personal nastiness between members, to the point that he doesn't join in or read the forum as much any more.

Please bear this in mind when posting whatever you like, whether it be useful or relevant. Running this forum costs $49 US dollars a month, which doesn't just materialize from the money tree, it comes from (mostly long time) users who donate their own money to keep this forum going.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,047
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com

Attachments

  • sea1.jpg
    sea1.jpg
    43.7 KB · Views: 155
  • sea8.jpg
    sea8.jpg
    47.5 KB · Views: 92
  • sea7.jpg
    sea7.jpg
    41.8 KB · Views: 67
  • sea6.jpg
    sea6.jpg
    26.8 KB · Views: 70
  • sea5.jpg
    sea5.jpg
    34.6 KB · Views: 70
  • sea4.jpg
    sea4.jpg
    39.6 KB · Views: 67
  • sea3.jpg
    sea3.jpg
    33 KB · Views: 98
  • sea2.jpg
    sea2.jpg
    27 KB · Views: 112

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,047
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Additional images of model of the Martin P6M Seamaster manufactured by Topping from 1955 found for sale on eBay.

Source: http://cgi.ebay.com/TOPPING-NAVY-MARTIN-P6M-1-SEAMASTER-DESK-MODEL-AIRPLANE_W0QQitemZ230418223489QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item35a5ff1181
 

Attachments

  • sea15.jpg
    sea15.jpg
    45.4 KB · Views: 63
  • sea14.jpg
    sea14.jpg
    43.5 KB · Views: 60
  • sea13.jpg
    sea13.jpg
    40.7 KB · Views: 59
  • sea12.jpg
    sea12.jpg
    28.8 KB · Views: 52
  • sea11.jpg
    sea11.jpg
    81.6 KB · Views: 54
  • sea10.jpg
    sea10.jpg
    46.8 KB · Views: 58
  • sea9.jpg
    sea9.jpg
    42.2 KB · Views: 84

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,713
Reaction score
935
Neat model - I love that display base! Already up to just shy of $500....

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,221
Reaction score
861
Shame it got one side of the T-tail warped... But this display base! It's so unique compared to other display models that it's almost more attractive than the model itself!!! Bah, the aircraft not Navy blue, so let me not bother... :'(

... Just kidding, I could not afford it, anyway! ;D
 

The Artist

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
638
Reaction score
292
Let's see if I've done this right.

This is the kind of model I meant when I said the following in the Martin Model 282 Comanche thread.

"Most of the models I remember were of common Martin designs and I got the impression that because those models were not of (then) current aircraft they were getting to be viewed more as clutter - that is except for the Seamaster models on the water-base which everyone thought looked cool."

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8004.msg72249.html#msg72249

Mike
 

CAIR67

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
45
Reaction score
9
I have had 3 of these Topping P6M's pass through my hands at some point or another. One of them came from a Martin factory worker, he said they were sold in the plant cafeteria for $1 a piece.
 

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,713
Reaction score
935
Greetings All -

Looks in good shape:

http://cgi.ebay.com/TOPPING-AIRPLANE-MODEL-MARTIN-P6M-1-SEAMASTER-RARE_W0QQitemZ220583391737QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item335bcb71f9

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • P6M-4.jpg
    P6M-4.jpg
    100.4 KB · Views: 209
  • P6M-3.jpg
    P6M-3.jpg
    164.1 KB · Views: 186
  • P6M-2.jpg
    P6M-2.jpg
    178.4 KB · Views: 205
  • P6M-1.jpg
    P6M-1.jpg
    176.7 KB · Views: 244

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,550
Reaction score
1,249
14 pictures at at the SDASM Archives.
Link: http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w=49487266%40N07&q=seamaster&m=text
 

minoslas

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
34
Reaction score
3
Any info, drawings, photos or images for weapon Bay, weapons configuration and gun turrets? What type of radars of sensors can carry them?
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,047
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
fredgell said:
Orionblamblam said:
If you've found anything on the SeaMistress (the larger plane in the background), I'd love to see it...

Dont recognise the seamistress reference but the picture looked awfully familiar


Try "NASA TN D-529"
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?Ne=20&N=4294888984+211

The tunnel models and drawings for 500,000lb heavy lift flying boat.

Regards

Fred

Original link to NTRS appears to be dead.

Kapryan, Walter J.; et al. Aerodynamic and Hydrodynamic Characteristics of a Model of a 500,000-Pound High-Subsonic Multijet Logistics Transport Seaplane Langley Research Center April 1961

Description:
Aerodynamic and hydrodynamic tests have been made of a 500,000- pound high-subsonic multijet logistics transport seaplane design con- . forming to the transonic area rule. The aerodynamic results show that acceptable stability and performance characteristics can be obtained on a high-subsonic-speed flying boat. Reasonable lift-drag ratios can be obtained up to Mach numbers of about 0.90. Additional improvements in lift-drag ratio and longitudinal stability characteristics can be obtained by small refinements in the area distribution. The hydrodynamic behavior of this design was determined to be generally satisfactory. Preliminary tests indicated that afterbody suction forces introduced some longitudinal take-off instability and high-speed resistance great enough to preclude take-off without afterburning. How-ever, the addition of a small auxiliary step to the afterbody slightly of the main step improved the stability and reduced the resistance to the point where satisfactory take-offs could be made without afterburning.

URL: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040016428_2004013341.pdf
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,047
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Video titled Hydrodynamic Investigation for Transonic Seaplanes from NASA Cultural Resources channel on YouTube.

Test conducted at NASA Langley Research Center's Tow Tanks. Two configurations of transonic seaplanes were assembled for the test.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl2ux6tkyns
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,047
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Video of DR-77 Ski Landing Tests from NASA Cultural Resources channel on YouTube.

Description:
Landing tests of the DR-77 hydro-ski seaplane with and with shock absorber ski struts. This test shows the effect of a shock absorber ski strut on the calm and rough water landing behavior of a 1/24 scale model. The area of the hydro-ski was 100 square feet and the deadrise angle 0 degrees. This test was conducted at NASA Langley Research Center in the Tow Tanks in the 1950s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hog2YgK5v0
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
782
Reaction score
135
Most of what killed the P6M seemed to be politics, new ballistic missile developments, differing views on what the Navy's priorities should be. Yet did the failure of the Convair F2Y Sea Dart program contribute to the Seamaster's demise?
 

fredgell

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 10, 2007
Messages
78
Reaction score
16
Nice video link there Triton.

If you look at the ' related videos' in Youtube you get

Smooth Water Take-Offs and Landings

which appears to be the atomic powered Princess, judging by the engine configuration.

Fred
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,047
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
From Code One magazine:

Description:
The Martin P6M Seamaster was developed under the US Navy's Seaplane Striking Force concept, which focused on the development of jet-powered seaplanes that could be used to perform minelaying, conventional and nuclear strike, and photoreconnaissance missions. First flown on 14 July 1955, eventually eight test aircraft and eight P6M-2 production versions were built. With the advent of the Polaris sea-launched ballistic missile, the Navy lost interest in a seaplane-based nuclear deterrent. All of the Seamasters were scrapped. The P6M is also notable as the last major aircraft production program of the Martin Aircraft Company.

Source: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?item_id=19
 

Attachments

  • 2010_08_01_Spotlight_P6M_Seamaster_1267828237_4695.jpg
    2010_08_01_Spotlight_P6M_Seamaster_1267828237_4695.jpg
    273.6 KB · Views: 344

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,047
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QowTqmxYZ1Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDia5WJB4Eg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqhhs5xrGek
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,047
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com

Attachments

  • P7Mnuclearseamasterpatrolbomber3viewart.jpg
    P7Mnuclearseamasterpatrolbomber3viewart.jpg
    72.7 KB · Views: 1,064
  • P7Mnuclearpoweredseamasterart.jpg
    P7Mnuclearpoweredseamasterart.jpg
    126.7 KB · Views: 1,080
  • P7Mnuclearpoweredseamaster.jpg
    P7Mnuclearpoweredseamaster.jpg
    116.6 KB · Views: 1,077

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,305
Reaction score
1,886
Triton, these are Richard C. Knott drawings, scanned from Bill Trimble's "Attack From The Sea"
Martin Model 331-6 is scanned from Stan Piet / Al Raithel's Martin P6M SeaMaster book

all three authors are members of the forum

in your search of interesting materials you are starting to cross thin line of copyright issues
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,221
Reaction score
861
Very interesting videos and material about a fascinating aircraft.

However, you have made a big mistake over the would-be military identity of the Model 331 series. At no time did this project ever receive the "P7M" designation. In fact, "P7M" was allocated, but to another project called the Submaster, or Model 313, an open ocean sonar seaplane developed from Model 290 and built only in mockup form.
 

Attachments

  • Model 313.jpg
    Model 313.jpg
    158.3 KB · Views: 996
  • Model 313 (P7M).jpg
    Model 313 (P7M).jpg
    23.8 KB · Views: 1,049

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,715
Reaction score
1,047
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
flateric said:
Triton, these are Richard C. Knott drawings, scanned from Bill Trimble's "Attack From The Sea"
Martin Model 331-6 is scanned from Stan Piet / Al Raithel's Martin P6M SeaMaster book

all three authors are members of the forum

in your search of interesting materials you are starting to cross thin line of copyright issues

I wish to apologize to those previously listed authors and members of the Secret Projects forum if my recent posts have crossed the line of fair use and into infringement of copyrights. The distinction between fair use and copyright infringement is unclear and not easily defined. There are no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. I believed that the images that I previously posted in this thread were in the public domain and not protected under copyright law.

If you see an image or drawing that I have posted that you believe violates fair use or is not in the public domain, please alert me or a moderator so that the image or drawing can be removed from the forum.
 

TimothyC

Arnie Holmes
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
21
Reaction score
23
The site that you link too - That's Ryan Crierie's ie, the guy who started this thread. Ryan is a great guy in person too
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,999
Reaction score
6,636
An interesting POV on the Seamaster cancellation:

The U.S. and its allies would be well advised to prepare for a broader set of military contingencies: "What is more apt to occur [than a general war with the Soviet Union] are local wars which both the Free World and the USSR will take great pains to prevent expanding into general war. This means precise delivery of weapons suitable under the circumstances existing. It will mean the quick positive delivery of sufficient force but not in excess of that required for a particular situation. It will mean accepting something less than unconditional surrender."31

Burke believed that the navy held the key to both these strategic challenges. A sea-based nuclear force would be much less vulnerable than the Strategic Air Command's land-based bombers and missiles and could achieve the same deterrent effect as the larger SAC force because its weapons would be harder to target and destroy. This would permit the Defense Department to shift resources from the general nuclear war mission into preparations for limited and local conflicts. Furthermore, in the unlikely event that the United States was forced into a nuclear war, the relative invulnerability of sea based missiles would mean that they could be withheld and used selectively, freeing the U.S. from the "use it or lose it" doomsday scenarios which dominated Air Force nuclear war planning. This strategy of "finite deterrence, controlled retaliation" was the fruit of Burke's years as a strategic planner, and provided the context for many of his most important decisions as CNO.32

Long before "finite deterrence" was fully articulated, Burke took the first steps toward creating the tools which would make it possible. Only two months after taking office, in October 1955, Burke moved to aggressively implement a tasking from the National Security Council, and directed the Navy to proceed as rapidly as possible to achieve a sea-based intermediate range ballistic missile. Burke's directive ran counter to the advice of many of his top subordinates in OPNAV, who argued that such a project was too technically complex and too expensive to be justified. Confident that the technical difficulties could be overcome, he appointed Rear Admiral William F. Raborn to head a Special Projects Office that would work jointly with the Army in developing a liquid fueled missile to be fired from converted merchant ships. The next summer, while the successful development of ballistic missiles was still far from assured, Burke directed the Navy staff to investigate a "minimal target system, the threat of destruction of which would deter the USSR." Burke would use the resulting study in the Joint Chiefs of Staff to argue against the escalating requirements of the Air Force for thermonuclear weapons to attack the Soviet Union, as well as for the bombers (and later intercontinental ballistic missiles) to deliver them.33

In the fall of 1956, as a result of progress made in developing solid fuel propulsion and lighter nuclear warheads, the Navy split its Fleet Ballistic Missile Program, now-codenamed Polaris, off from the Army and looked to development of a submarine based missile force. In January 1957, breaking with the long-standing practice of treating naval nuclear forces as threats against only "targets of naval interest," Burke directed that the developing Polaris system be considered a "national" deterrent system. That November, the Polaris development schedule was accelerated so as to produce a deployed submarine armed with 1200 mile missiles by 1961. Finally, in early 1958, Burke released a long range concept for "The Navy of the 1970 Era" that called for 40 ballistic missile submarines to serve as the navy's deterrent to all-out war, while 15 attack carriers would be used as the service's "primary cutting tool" to forestall or fight in limited conflicts.

By 1959, Burke clearly was looking to Polaris as a potential replacement for most of SAC's bomber and missile force, but at a much reduced cost for the nation as a whole. A study of alternative targeting, which had the potential to move the nation's war plans away from a largely preemptive massive first strike effort aimed at Soviet military and civilian targets across the board, toward an exclusively retaliatory target list of highest priority targets only was underway in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If the "alternative undertaking" was adopted as the nation's primary strategy in war, finite deterrence might become a reality. The first Polaris submarine, USS George Washington, with its 16 ballistic missiles, was on track to its first deployment in the fall of 1960, thereby setting the stage for development of a controlled retaliation strategy.

The cost to the navy of implementing Burke's alternative to national nuclear strategy was high, however. The service's annual budget hovered at $11 to 13 billion through 1961, far short of the $16 to 17 billion Burke calculated would be needed to produce a modernized U.S. fleet by the 1970s. This meant that many promising programs, including the Triton and Regulus II cruise missiles and the P6M Seamaster long range jet seaplane had to be cancelled. The necessity of such trade-offs troubled Burke. A 1957 study projected that Navy force levels would fall to 693 ships by 1971, far short of the 927 required for wartime missions, if funds were committed to the development of Polaris, to making all future construction submarines nuclear powered, and to introducing nuclear power into all future aircraft carriers and some surface combatants.34 Nevertheless, the CNO was determined to press forward with the effort to broaden national military strategy.


31. Burke to Mountbatten, 4 February 1958.

32. A detailed assessment of Arleigh Burke's role in the making of nuclear strategy is contained in this author's essay, "The Origins of Overkill: Nuclear Weapons and American Strategy, 1945-1960," International Security, 7, Spring 1983, 3-71.

33. Vice Admiral R.E. Libby, Memorandum to Op-00, Subject: Proposals Relative to Atomic Operation Concept, Serial BM00043-57, 1 May 1957, File A16-10, Atomic Warfare Operations, Box 8, Chief of Naval Operations Op-00 Files (hereafter Op-00), 1957, NHA.

34. Rear Admiral R.E. Rose, Memorandum for the Chief of Naval Operations, Subject: Inadequacy of $1.5 billion Shipbuilding Funds Level, Serial 0041P03, 13 September 1957, A1(1) Unlabelled Folder, and Rear Admiral Rose, Memorandum for the Chief of Naval Operations, Subject: Impact of Polaris Program on Shipbuilding and Conversion Program, Serial 034903B1, 13 December 1957, A-1(1) Shipbuilding and Conversion Programs Folder, both in Box 1, Op-00, 1957, NHA.


http://www.history.navy.mil/bios/burke_rosen2.htm
 

XP67_Moonbat

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,174
Reaction score
131
So I'm almost at the end of Trimble's STRIKE FROM THE SEA. I came upon a reference to BuAer concepts thrown out toward the end of the Seamaster's career meant to show its' versatility.

In May 1957, BuAer proposed launching Regulus II missiles piggyback off the P6M-2 Seamaster. In January 1958, BuAer proposed a 14,000lb, 2-stagehypersonic boost-glide missile with 1000mi to be carried internally. range. That following Feb, it was also proposed to launch Corvus missiles from the mine bay.

It's the Regulus and BGV concepts that have my attention. Anyone else hear of either of these projects?

The book's cites The BuAer documenst Technical Feasibility and Operational Analysis of P6M-Regulus II Weapon System and A Preliminary Design Study Of an Air-To-Surface, Boost-Glide Missile System for the P6M Aircraft as a references.
 

XP67_Moonbat

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,174
Reaction score
131
Makes me wonder if the boost-glide weapon was the Boeing 811-9 that Scott showed in US Bomber Projects 7? Both projects originate from about the same era.

I wonder....
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,999
Reaction score
6,636
A little bit of info on the Grumman Design 143 Bushfire rear-firing SARH missile system that would have been fitted to production Seamasters: http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=20500

Attached image courtesy of MKSheppard at the above link.
 

Attachments

  • Grumman_143.png
    Grumman_143.png
    302.7 KB · Views: 694

RyanC

Crazy Researcher
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
893
Reaction score
278
Website
www.alternatewars.com
Text from that is:

One of the least-known projects undertaken by Grumman during the late 1950s was the Bushfire rear defence system for the P6M-2 strategic flying-boat then being developed by Martin for the Navy. Whereas the two XP6M-1 prototypes had a twin-gun tail turret, production P6M-2s were to have been fitted with the Grumman Design 143 Bushfire system using SARH (semi-active radar homing) missiles launched to the rear. As shown in the accompanying drawing dated 15 January, 1957, one missile was carried in a launching tube, ready to be fired as soon as an enemy aircraft was detected by the Aero X23B search radar. Four to six additional missiles were carried on a revolver-type housing forward of the launching tube. Cancellation of the P6M-2 programme resulted in the demise of the Bushfire system.
 

RyanC

Crazy Researcher
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
893
Reaction score
278
Website
www.alternatewars.com
I found some stuff from research I did in 2009. :D

The competitors for the P6M Bomber Defense Missile circa 1 JULY 1957 were:

Grumman -- best of the submittals, but the missile and its complete system was considerably overweight.

Bendix

Motorola

Avion

Sperry

Emerson (Spherical missile)

Westinghouse (Spherical missile)

Admiral

Solar

In the end none of the submittals fully met the specifications, and they couldn't be developed in time to meet Seamaster deliveries. Plus, the weight of the BDM system aggravated the already serious balance problem in the P6M.

This combined with budget cuts, killed the Seamaster BDM.

...

The P6M BDM program was initiated in 1952 and an operational requirement CA-09701 was issued June 1957.

Requirements were:

Target surveillance/Detection
Threat Evaluation
IRCM
ECM
Active Defense by minimum of 4 guided missiles

Countermeasures required spherical coverage in S Band (radar), X Band (Radar), VHF (Radar) and IR.

Missile coverage was rear hemisphere, 120 degrees in azimuth and 60 degrees in elevation.

Missile range was:

Directly Aft: 16,000 feet at sea level to 30,000 feet at altitude:

Extreme of Azimuth: 11,000 feet at sea level to 25,000 feet at 50,000 ft altitude.

Combat environment envisaged in 1961-1965 period was:

Interceptors, of which 50% would be gun/rocket armed and the other 50% armed with missiles with a 5 to 8 mile range using radar or IR homing. A few interceptors would have mach 2.0 capability and have 15 mile ranged missiles.

SAMs would be of the NIKE and TALOS type

AA Guns would be radar controlled guns.

The ECM system would work against:

Early Warning Radars
CGI Radars
Air Intercept (AI) Radars
Communications
Missiles

Passive warning would have been provided via detection of radiation and pulsed radar signals, with attacking missiles being detected and automatically countered via chaff dispensing or infrared decoy launches.

Weight goals were 300 pounds per missile and 2500 lbs for the total installation (incl. 4 missiles).
 

RyanC

Crazy Researcher
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
893
Reaction score
278
Website
www.alternatewars.com
Here are the proposals Part I

EDIT: Of note is that it appears ADMIRAL used Beech Aircraft of Wichita as a subcontractor for its BDM Project, per the drawing having Beech markings on it.
 

Attachments

  • Admiral_BDM_P6M-2.jpg
    Admiral_BDM_P6M-2.jpg
    795.7 KB · Views: 437
  • Avion_BDM_P6M-2.gif
    Avion_BDM_P6M-2.gif
    443.9 KB · Views: 381
  • Bendix_BDM_P6M-2.jpg
    Bendix_BDM_P6M-2.jpg
    545.2 KB · Views: 366
  • Emerson_BDM_P6M-2.jpg
    Emerson_BDM_P6M-2.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 336
  • Emerson_2_BDM_P6M-2.jpg
    Emerson_2_BDM_P6M-2.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 134
  • Grumman_BDM_P6M-2.jpg
    Grumman_BDM_P6M-2.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 149
  • Motorola_BDM_P6M-2.gif
    Motorola_BDM_P6M-2.gif
    976 KB · Views: 137
Top