Various Martin Commercial Flying Boat and Airliner Projects

hesham said:
From Martin Archive,
some drawings to the M-160 & M-159.
Click to expand...
No. Interpreting plan numbers as possible model numbers is a tricky exercise, which can only work when you have enough material at your disposal to establish a pattern, AND known model numbers that fit the scheme. If not, you can end up making mistakes, and you've made several here:
  1. Image #1 does not correspond to any of the other two.
  2. The catamaran project CAN'T be the Model 159, which was a 1937 observation scout seaplane (probably competing against the XOSN-1, as both designs were tested at the same time at Langley). The only catamaran design I found in the Martin list was Model 142, a proposal to U.S. Navy, but perhaps other, later flying boat projects were also considered as catamarans. Note that the only model indication on the plan is "Misc." (short for "miscellaneous"), probably indicating that the design was not given a proper designation or name, at least at the time it was drawn.
  3. What you believe to be Model 160 is in fact Model 193. The plan itself is quite clear about it! "Model: C-250,000", or commercial, 250,000 pounds". The weight, the canted rudders and the double-deck all prove that it's Model 193. As for Model 160, it was a four-engine long-range patrol bomber proposal (160A, 160B, the latter becoming the Model 170 Mars).
Between 1934 and 1939, Martin designed quite a few large flying boats, and it's not always easy to know which is which:
  • Model 147: four-engine monoplane flying boat for the U.S. Navy
  • Model 148: four-engine flying boat for Pan Am
  • Model 150 Streamliner: 40-passenger, 22-ton commercial transport (and its flying boat version) with four 800 hp Pratt & Whitney engines
  • Model 152: 63,000 lb. flying boat for Pan Am
  • Model 153: 100,000 lb. transatlantic flying boat
  • Model 154: 54,000 lb. flying boat for Pan Am
  • Model 155: 55,000 lb. flying boat for Pan Am
  • Model 157B: four-engine ocean transport competing with Boeing 314 and Sikorsky S-45
  • Model 162Com: Twin-engine transatlantic commercial export based on the Mariner
  • Model 170C: four-engine 165,000 lb. flying boat based on the Mars
  • Model 193: 250,000 lb. double-deck cargo transport (a 40% enlargement of Model 170 Mars)
Also, can you be more specific about what you call the "Martin Archive"?
 
Stargazer said:
  1. Image #1 does not correspond to any of the other two.
  2. The catamaran project CAN'T be the Model 159, which was a 1937 observation scout seaplane (probably competing against the XOSN-1, as both designs were tested at the same time at Langley). The only catamaran design I found in the Martin list was Model 142, a proposal to U.S. Navy, but perhaps other, later flying boat projects were also considered as catamarans. Note that the only model indication on the plan is "Misc." (short for "miscellaneous"), probably indicating that the design was not given a proper designation or name, at least at the time it was drawn.
  3. What you believe to be Model 160 is in fact Model 193. The plan itself is quite clear about it! "Model: C-250,000", or commercial, 250,000 pounds". The weight, the canted rudders and the double-deck all prove that it's Model 193. As for Model 160, it was a four-engine long-range patrol bomber proposal (160A, 160B, the latter becoming the Model 170 Mars).
Click to expand...

That's totally wrong,

1- The imagine is for M-160 as they declared in Martin Archive,and they
always used SK for explain the Model number,and only for first three
digits,and no mind if there is variants.

2- As they wrote on the drawing,it's SK159,and that means Model-159,and
we must never forget the magic word; Re-allocated.

3- Another mistake,the M-193 was based on M-170,which essentially was
the M-160,you must realize M-160 had six engines (not four as M-193),and
that's probably M-160B.
 
So, you still maintain that the Model 159 is that catamaran, when the official Martin model list from the museum said it was an observation type? You believe that my list of Martin flying boats wrong, when it was also taken directly from the same museum document? And when I insist that your first image shows neither of the other two designs, you also think it's wrong? Not only can you never admit you've been wrong, but when presented with circumstantial evidence you simply shun it by quoting alleged "archives", without providing any link for them. Worse, you say that what I write is "totally wrong"!! Not even "a little wrong", but "totally"!!! As if there was nothing to redeem in my post!
After years being away from this forum, I come back only to find that you are still repeating the same annoying mistakes, asserting things purely based on guesswork, and not verifying the info, even when it is available elsewhere on the forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hesham - you need to cite your sources when posting. This is the perennial issue.

Where did you get the images? "The Martin Archive" is not an answer. Do you mean The Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum (GLAAM)? How did you get the images from them given you live in Egypt? Another website which claimed they were from The Martin Archive?

@Stargazer I understand your frustration here, but the way you wrote your post did not meet forum guidelines. I've edited it a bit.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Hesham - you need to cite your sources. This is the perennial issue.

Where did you get the images? "The Martin Archive" is not an answer. Do you mean The Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum (GLAAM)? How did you get the images from them?
Click to expand...

Yes that's right my dear PaulMM,but I got it from a friend,not directly
from the site.
 
Then you should post with source The Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum (GLAAM) via [name of friend]. Did Stan Piet at GLAAM attest that the model numbers are correct, or is this a guess by your friend or you?

I suggest rather than throw accusations around, we revisit the Martin drawing designation system and see if Hesham's observation about drawing numbers matches the evidence.

Being categorised by an archive isn't in itself 100% proof, as I've encountered items miscategorised before.
 
Last edited:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Then you should post with source The Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum (GLAAM) via [name of friend]. Did Stan Piet at GLAAM attest that the model numbers are correct, or is this a guess by your friend or you?
Click to expand...

Please see my PM.
 
Apophenia said:
Hesham's 100 passenger Martin design is very odd.

The passenger size, six buried engines, and double-decker layout all smack of the "Lindbergh Specification" (Juan Tripp's nonsensical bit of street-theatre for Pan Am). Boeing, Sikorsky, and Consolidated all contributed designs (although the latter was actually a four-engined concept).

With the M-130 Clipper experience behind him, Glenn Martin denounced the "Lindbergh Specification". Could it be that a Martin concept was drawn up for the Pan Am "competition" anyway?
Click to expand...
The Lindbergh's letter (December 1937)

Capture d’écran 2024-03-20 à 09.57.25.png Capture d’écran 2024-03-20 à 09.59.31.png
 
And the device shown on its own:
 

Attachments

  • EDO concept drawing of beaching gear for Martin four engine seaplane patrol plane.jpg
    EDO concept drawing of beaching gear for Martin four engine seaplane patrol plane.jpg
    24.6 KB · Views: 50
lark said:
Think the flying boat is te first Convair Tradewing model instead of a Martin design...
Click to expand...

I think you are right my dear Lark.
 

Attachments

  • 10.jpg
    10.jpg
    15.9 KB · Views: 38

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom